Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered a Second time on Tuesday 8 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Nursery Education

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about nursery education.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am implementing the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, good quality pre-school places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take them up.

Sir Thomas Arnold: What specific steps have been taken to implement that excellent new initiative?

Mrs. Shephard: I have appointed a task force to take the work forward and to consult widely. I shall welcome ideas and information from all sectors, and already the Council of Local Education Authorities and the Pre-School Playgroups Association have provided information. My ministerial colleagues have also met with a number of groups.

Mr. Spearing: In view of the statement that the Secretary of State has just made, why do the Government continue to block the Nursery Education (Assessment of Needs) Bill, which I introduced in February but which has been blocked on at least 12 occasions since? It would place a duty on local education authorities to assess the need for nursery education, as introduced by an all-party Government in 1944 under R.A. Butler. Is not that needed now, and will the right hon. Lady please reconsider her decision?

Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at a range of options for expansion, and a sound basis for that expansion will be provided by what already exists on the ground. A great deal of thought and work has gone into nursery provision, and we shall take account of the work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative and draw her attention to one of the recommendations that the Education Select Committee makes in its excellent report on provision for under-fives concerning the need to ensure an appropriate curriculum for nursery education, as a mere extension downwards of the primary curriculum is far from sufficient?

Mrs. Shephard: The objective will be to provide education for the early years, and not child minding. The Office for Standards in Education will be asked to draw up educational criteria.

Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Education on her appointment at the end of July, and I look forward to crossing ideological swords with her. How much will the initiative cost, and where will the money come from?

Mrs. Shephard: May I, in turn, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I can reassure him that we are looking at a range of options for expansion, but


we have not made a decision yet. The need for additional funding will be determined as part of the development of the policy, but it is new provision and there will be new money.

Books and Equipment

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in spending on books and equipment for schools since 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): Spending on books and equipment in local education authority maintained schools in England increased by 28 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. On a per-pupil basis, spending has increased by 56 per cent. in real terms over the same period. Equivalent information is not available for grant-maintained or independent schools.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he compare the spending of Gloucestershire with that of the remainder of the country? Might any special additional funding be made available for the provision of books and equipment?

Mr. Squire: I can confirm that, broadly speaking, Gloucestershire's spending on books and equipment is in line with the average for England. On a cash basis, the figures for Gloucestershire LEA are £63 per pupil in 1991–92 and £76 per pupil in 1992–93; the all-England figures are £ per pupil in 1991–92, increasing to £75 per pupil in 1992–93.
On my hon. Friend's second question, there is in addition a fairly substantial grant for education, support and training worth approximately £79 million in the current year.

Ms Estelle Morris: Is the real question not what equipment schools have compared with 15 years ago but whether they are properly equipped to teach children to succeed and survive in the next century? Is the Minister aware that many schools still have to rely on parental contributions for essential items of education? Is he happy that how well a school is equipped should in part depend on the wealth of the parents whose children it serves?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that under the revolution inspired by local management of schools, let alone by grant-maintained schools, governing bodies can, and do, take such decisions themselves on the basis of the priorities as they see them for their school. As for her comment about voluntary activity, long may the well-established tradition continue in Britain whereby parents and friends of a school who wish to do so can contribute further to assist its development.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that local management of schools is acknowledged in my constituency and elsewhere as a total success, can my hon. Friend recall what Opposition Members said about it when it was introduced by the Government?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. As most of us will remember, most of the initiatives introduced by the Government in the past 10 years have been opposed by the Opposition, only in most cases for Opposition Members shamefacedly to admit eventually that, yes, they worked and that they will support them.

Nursery Education

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which countries of the European Union have a higher percentage of under-fives in nursery education than Britain.

The Minister of State, Department of Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The United Kingdom is one of only three countries in the European Union where universal state education starts at the age of five; elsewhere, it is at the age of six or even seven. Although data exist for participation rates in most of the countries of the European Union, they do not compare like with like because they do not, for example, clearly distinguish between education and child care, or take account of whether parents are required to contribute towards the cost.

Mr. Banks: I was asking the Minister about under-fives, not over-fives. I congratulate him on his selective use of statistics—Disraeli would have been greatly impressed. If the French can manage to have 100 per cent. of three to four-year-olds in education and the Belgians can manage 94 per cent., should not we be able to achieve somewhat more than 50 per cent. of under-fives in education? Can the Minister bring himself to congratulate the London borough of Newham, which has the highest percentage of under-fives in nursery classes in the country? The most deprived local authority has achieved that. Will the Minister say something nice about Newham?

Hon. Members: Ah.

Mr. Forth: I suppose it is difficult to praise a constituency that returns the hon. Gentleman, but I might try on one of my better days. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically simplistic. It is surely not good enough to look at a percentage provision. We should look at the quality and effectiveness of the provision. There is no point in trading futile statistics. The fact that the hon. Gentleman claims that there is a certain provision in France says nothing about its nature, its quality or how much of it is paid for by the parents or the taxpayer.
We shall examine such matters, which will inform the review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated. When we make our proposals, they will take fully into account best practice in other countries and, indeed, in local education authorities. That will inform the review and the policies that we shall eventually place before the House.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the form of nursery education that may work in Lisbon or Athens need not necessarily be the right form of education in Newham or even Warwickshire? What role does my hon. Friend envisage that the Pre-School Playgroups Association will play in the provision of nursery education in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want, and already encourage, all those involved in pre-five provision to come to us with their thoughts and ideas. We want to take them fully into account and ensure that, whatever regime is eventually proposed, it will take full account of diversity of provision and the maximum


parental choice, with a guarantee of quality so that we can ensure that pre-five education is of the best throughout the country. That will be our objective.

Mr. Steinberg: I am bewildered by the Minister's change in attitude to nursery provision. Why has he suddenly become an advocate of nursery provision when previously, time after time, he refused to acknowledge its benefits? Has he now seen the educational grounds for such provision, or has he seen that its introduction is a political necessity?

Mr. Forth: There is no contradiction or difficulty whatever here. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made it clear that we want to develop quality pre-school provision for under-fives. That is our objective and we want to ensure that what we do is carefully considered, properly based and properly delivered. Among other things, my objection has always been to some of the more half-baked and superficial ideas that have come from the Opposition, not least from the hon. Gentleman.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are now being educated in self-governing grant-maintained schools; and what was the same figure one year ago.

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have opted for grant-maintained status in the last year; and what was the figure in the previous year.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: About 620,000 pupils are now being educated in grant-maintained schools, compared with about 480,000 this time last year. The present total includes almost a fifth of all secondary pupils.
During the same period, the number of grant-maintained schools has increased by 310, compared with 420 in the previous year.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is she aware that the vast bulk of the parents, teachers and governors to whom I speak in Gloucestershire warmly welcome the Government's improvements, which enable them to run their schools independently under grant-maintained status? Is it not typical of the Opposition that they would seek to reverse our excellent reforms, which have so benefited the education of our children?

Mrs. Shephard: Grant-maintained schools are both popular and successful, and millions of parents are now keenly interested in them. The Opposition will no doubt now wish to sort out their stance on the matter, as that number includes at least one Labour Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Is the Secretary of State aware of the unsolicited distribution of 1,000 copies of the Department for Education video, "Our Children: Our Choice", to parents whose children attend West Monmouth school in Pontypool—parents who have already voted against grant-maintained status? In the interests of balanced and

informed debate, will the right hon. Lady make available, in this instance and others, the equivalent case against the nationalisation of schools?

Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I am not aware of the unsolicited distribution of videos. The Government intend to ensure that parents and governors who are considering opting out will continue to have adequate and full information about the benefits.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that all the secondary schools in my constituency of Ruislip-Northwood, except a Church of England secondary school, Bishop Ramsay, have been opted-out schools for a number of years? So successful are they that pupils are sent to them by their parents from other boroughs, making it impossible for local parents in my constituency to send their children to their local opted-out secondary schools. Will she therefore change the Greenwich judgment and make borough boundaries less permeable?

Mrs. Shephard: It is very important that sensible admission policies be achieved by close co-operation between local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools. I am happy to look at the detail of my hon. Friend's case.

Mr. Don Foster: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on their recent appointments. I hope that we may now see some consensus in education in the next couple of years.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the importance, in the calculation of an individual school's grant, of the number of school meals that are consumed on census day each January? Will she condemn any school—such as one in Hampshire—that last year urged parents to persuade children to eat a school meal on census day to boost its grant? Will she instigate an inquiry into the reasons why this year, on census day, 25 per cent. more meals were eaten in each grant-maintained school than in each local education authority school? Was it another attempt by GM schools to take money from LEAs?

Mrs. Shephard: I am aware of the case, and it is being investigated by the FAS.

Statistics

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures she has for the number of 16-year-olds participating in part-time or full-time education; and what were the comparable figures for five years ago.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): In the 1988–89 academic year, 473,000 16-year-olds participated in full-time or part-time education, representing a participation rate of nearly 70 per cent. For the 1993–94 academic year, the latest available figures show that the equivalent figures are 429,000 and 80 per cent.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are very satisfactory, and that they perhaps reflect the introduction of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications courses, which are thought by pupils to be very relevant to their


aspirations? Indeed, a report on GNVQs, published today, described students' responses as "overwhelmingly positive". Does my hon. Friend agree that schools that do not offer GNVQ courses should be encouraged to do so, perhaps taking a leaf out of the book of St. Vincent college in my constituency, which he was good enough to visit recently?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I very much enjoyed my visit to the college, with which I know he is very involved. It has excellent provision, reflecting a strong interest in, and a strong take-up of, vocational qualifications, both GNVQs and NVQs. We now find that the targets that we set for GNVQ involvement for 1996 have already been hit, and we are determined that those courses should deliver high-quality vocational education.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome the increase in the number of young people extending their education, but will the Minister recognise and acknowledge that it is not all good—that many young people who are staying on at school are doing so because there are no prospects of employment for them in many parts of the country?

Mr. Boswell: It is interesting that the figures for participation in further education began to increase before the recent recession, and have continued to increase during it. I would say to students at school or college during this period that the best possible guarantee for their future employment is high-grade education, whether academic or vocational.

Mr. Congdon: Given the recent reports on GNVQs, which expressed some worries, what steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that standards, which are most important, are rigorously maintained?

Mr. Boswell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining standards in vocational qualifications. In a sense, we anticipated those reports by setting out a six-point plan as early as this March. We are now pressing ahead, with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, on implementing that plan, and any other points, including the incorporation of core skills, that have arisen from recent reports.

Research Funding

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure equality of research funding throughout further and higher education establishments; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Boswell: The Government are committed to ensuring value for money and accountability for public funds. We have asked the funding councils to allocate research funding selectively.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will agree that research plays an integral and critical role at our universities and higher education establishments, but will he advise the House of the criteria that will be used in assessing the efficiency of existing research and how decisions will be reached about future central funding, as not all funding

comes from the private sector? Will he ensure that there is an equitable geographical basis for the funding of all research?

Mr. Boswell: I very much agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of research in higher education. I am somewhat surprised that she did not acknowledge the fact that the bulk of research funding continues to be derived from the Education Departments. Under our arrangements, there is a separate Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which accounts for about one seventh of the English total of higher education funding. In both funding councils, my understanding is that research moneys are properly allocated selectively with regard to quality, and that quality is determined not by Ministers but by academic peer review.

Mr. Forman: Our further and higher education centres are tremendously dynamic and diverse, thanks to Conservative policies. Will my hon. Friend cling to the principles that have always informed that policy of supporting research, which is to back quality and centres of excellence?

Mr. Boswell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his part in bringing about that high quality in higher education and the emphasis on diversity. I strongly emphasise the importance of quality and diversity of admission, which we are determined to secure at all times.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree that, if lecturers are to maintain high standards in teaching, they will need to be actively involved in research? If he cannot guarantee equality in research funding, how can he guarantee equality of standards in teaching throughout higher education?

Mr. Boswell: It is for the funding councils to balance their funds between research and teaching. The hon. Lady will be aware that the bulk of those funds are spent on the teaching function. That is important, and we hope that as the system develops the balance of funding will reflect the quality of teaching.

Nursery Education

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with private providers of nursery schooling in preparation for the introduction of the Government scheme.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has not yet had any discussions with private providers of nursery education. However, she has made arrangements to visit a private day nursery and an independent school nursery class shortly. She will also be meeting delegates from the Early Childhood Education Forum which represents, among others, private providers, during the course of the consultation exercise. We expect private nursery classes and schools to play a full part in the expansion and to add to the rich diversity of current provision.

Mr. Rathbone: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that answer and for his commitment to quality in nursery education, which he gave in answer to an earlier question. May I have his further reassurance that there will be consultations with some well-known international organisers of nursery education, such as


Montessori, which set such a high standard for nursery education? I hope that the new Government nursery schools will emulate that standard.

Mr. Forth: Yes, I am able to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I hope to visit a Montessori school in the near future. Beyond that, it is very much in our interests to get from all the providers as much input, information and advice as we can. We want to ensure that our proposals are firmly based on the best of existing practice, so that we can build on that and incorporate a quality guarantee. Only by extensive and continuing consultation over the next few months are we likely to be able to do so.

Mr. Burden: As the Prime Minister's recent statements on nursery education are different from those of the previous Secretary of State, surely there are three possibilities: first, that there has been a change of policy; secondly, that the previous Secretary of State did not mean what he said; or, thirdly, that the Prime Minister does not mean what he says. Which is it?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the simple process of policy evolution. If he cares to consider carefully what has gone on in the past few months he will see that policy is evolving before his very eyes. In the capable hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that process of evolution will speed up gradually but steadily, and in the new year we shall unveil our new policies. At that time, the hon. Gentleman will see how superficial his comments are.

Schools, Bedfordshire

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from Bedfordshire county council for increases in capital expenditure on maintained schools for the period after 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Robin Squire: Bedfordshire LEA has recently submitted its bid for capital support for schools in 1995–96. The degree to which that bid reflects the national priority criteria for the distribution of capital will determine the authority's annual capital guideline for 1995–96, which I expect to announce in December.

Sir David Madel: Will my hon. Friend be able to respond positively to the specific request by Bedfordshire county council that just over £4 million be spent on Cedars upper school, which is popular, successful and becoming over-subscribed and in urgent need of that money to enable it to expand?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable on education matters, makes a persuasive case. However, I hope that he will understand if I stand by my answer to his first question. We shall assess all basic need bids, such as the one for Cedars upper school to which he referred, in line with our published criteria. We shall, of course, take into account both projected demand in the area and local surplus places.

Drug Abuse

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to combat drug abuse in schools.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Department is playing a full part in the Government's strategy for drug prevention.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to eliminate drug abuse, it must be tackled at the earliest opportunity —through education in the classroom? Does she further agree that the worst possible message that we could send to our young people would be to legalise soft drugs, as the Liberal Democrat party would do?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Education on drugs is part of the national curriculum from five to 16. Indeed, references to drugs have been maintained in the new slimmed-down curriculum. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) began his question this afternoon by asking for consensus. I assure him that there will be never be consensus from the Conservative party on legalising drugs of any kind.

Mr. Miller: Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the advice given by a spokesperson for the Liberal and Conservative-controlled Cheshire county council, who told one of my staff this week that there is no drugs problem in our local schools? Does she agree that it is a problem which affects all schools throughout the United Kingdom and that our education representatives locally and nationally should be taking an active interest in it?

Mrs. Shephard: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The recently announced Government initiative in the Green Paper made education a matter of key concern in the battle against drugs. Drugs are an educational issue as well as a social evil. It is important to remove the stigma from those schools that make a stand against drugs. Drugs are an issue for all schools and for all of us.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most effective instruments for improving supervision in schools would be to welcome volunteers into schools to assist teachers in a wide variety of different functions? Apart from anything else, there would be two pairs of eyes in the classroom rather than just one.

Mrs. Shephard: Next week, I shall be launching a draft circular as a basis for consultation on teaching about drugs and the handling of drugs-related incidents. We expect the consultation to result in many excellent ideas for good practice from across the country, some of which may include those put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I applaud the Government's attempts to control drugs in schools and urge them to do more, but why are the Government at the same time cutting by 25 per cent. the number of customs officers dealing with drug enforcement? Is it inconsistency or hypocrisy?

Mrs. Shephard: I think that what it could be is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the total Government programme on drugs prevention amounts to £500 million. Her


Majesty's Customs and Excise is involved in the recent initiative, as are the Education and Health Departments, the Department of Social Security and other Government Departments.

Mr. Brazier: As a former schools inspector, does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the initiative must be taken at county level? Does she further agree that it is outrageous that, nine months after a call in February from Conservative county councillors for a tougher policy on discipline in schools in Kent, the Lib-Lab ruling coalition has still not agreed to take action?

Mrs. Shephard: I always believe the comments of my hon. Friend and what he describes is lamentable.

Primary School Inspections

Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of primary school inspections planned by the Office for Standards in Education for this term will not take place during this term.

Mr. Forth: While this is mainly a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education, I am advised that contracts have been let for 76 per cent. of the primary schools inspection originally planned for this term.

Mr. Byers: Is the Minister not concerned that 24 per cent. of those planned inspections will fail to take place this term? Does he agree with the comments made by the former chief inspector of schools that the main problem was the requirement that every contract for inspection has to go out to competitive tender? Does he agree that it is yet another example of his Government putting political dogma before the interests of the nation's children?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is being a little previous in this matter. This is the first term of primary inspections and we are planning for and approaching them systematically and methodically. Although the figures show that we have fallen somewhat short of the plans prepared by Ofsted, we are well on the way in making a good start.
Bearing in mind the difficulties that have arisen, of which we have made no secret, Ofsted is taking a number of measures to alter the contracting arrangements and certain other matters in an attempt to ensure that the cycle of primary inspections will develop in pace over the next few terms. At this stage, like Ofsted, I am confident that that will be achieved.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that he should not listen too much to the carping from Opposition Members, who opposed inspections in schools but are now complaining that they are not happening fast enough? Does he understand the concern felt by some grant-maintained schools that they will be inspected by the local authorities from whose control they have escaped? Will he consider that point carefully?

Mr. Forth: I know that there has been widespread concern on the latter point, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that as the Ofsted inspections proceed and the level of expertise and impartiality becomes more and more obvious, schools will be reassured that the new independent professional inspection process is of great value both to education and to schools themselves. More

and more schools are beginning to learn that that is to their benefit. As for the attitude of Opposition Members, this is yet another area in which they cannot quite make up their minds whether what we are doing is so much better that they want to agree with us, or whether they want to stick with their traditional opposition and become lost as a result.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that many local authority chief education officers are complaining that th0ere is inadequate funding for inspections? Is he further aware that that has resulted in the educational requirements of schools being denied in order to meet the costs of inspections? Will the Minister consider providing additional funding?

Mr. Forth: Opposition Members complaining about a lack of money is something that happens all too frequently. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should establish from his Front-Bench colleagues whether they are now prepared to commit more money to education, for this or any other purpose.

Discipline in Schools

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to improve the levels of discipline in schools.

Mr. Forth: In May, guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline was sent to all schools as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack. The guidance aims to help schools to maintain and improve discipline. In September, the Department published an anti-bullying pack to help schools combat bullying.

Mr. Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Department on their work on discipline in schools. We are all aware of the few well-publicised schools which have discipline problems, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the last Ofsted report showed that most schools did not have a discipline problem and that most pupils in the state sector were well behaved?

Mr. Forth: It is important to get this matter in context and to understand that throughout the country teachers are doing an excellent job in maintaining classroom discipline. In most classrooms, in most schools, for most of the time, there is an orderly atmosphere and pupils are learning. However, undoubtedly there is a very small number of difficult pupils. We want to work with teachers to ensure that they have available to them all reasonable means of dealing with disciplinary problems. Very often the key to that is parents. My appeal is for parents to support teachers, governors and heads of schools in maintaining proper discipline. Without parental support, the job is much more difficult.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister today recognise something that every teacher in this country recognises—that there is a link between the unacceptable rise in the numbers in school classes, in both primary and secondary schools, and both the quality of education and


the discipline maintained? Does he agree that there needs to be a limit on class sizes, especially in primary schools, to enable quality and discipline to be maintained?

Mr. Forth: No, I know of no such link. If the hon. Lady thinks that, simply by repeating it often enough she will make it come true, she is sadly mistaken. If she can produce any evidence of a causal connection between classroom sizes and discipline problems, I shall be happy to consider it, but no such evidence has yet come to my attention.

Mr. Hawkins: On the subject of discipline in classrooms, did my hon. Friend have the opportunity at the weekend to see the excellent article by The Sunday Telegraph education correspondent, Mr. Jonathan Petre, reporting on a visit that he and some secondary school heads had made to Japanese schools which had high numbers in the classroom but high standards of discipline? Does he not feel that it was a counsel of despair for some of the heads on that visit to say that they did not feel that it was possible to emulate the high standards of discipline in Japanese classrooms in their own schools? If my hon. Friend has not seen that article, will he consider it carefully, as there are lessons to be learned there for British schools?

Mr. Forth: Of course we should always be conscious of experience in other countries, but quite how far Japanese experience is directly transferable to Britain is an interesting matter on which I would wish to ponder. However, I agree that it is depressing if people in the responsible position that head teachers undoubtedly have, when given the opportunity to see some sort of international comparison of this kind, are reluctant to accept the lessons that may be there to be learnt. I hope that they will think again, just as I am prepared to consider the example that my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Blunkett: Does the Minister agree that discipline is crucial to an acceptable learning environment, but that pastoral care in schools and special support, including with the family, are much more important than the Group 4 approach to school discipline, which has resulted in 8,000 pupils being excluded from our schools, many of them grant-maintained schools, during the past year?

Mr. Forth: I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. When he has had a little more time, he may like to study the figures somewhat more carefully, when he will see that they are not as they first appear. A lot of nonsense is being talked at the moment about the nature of exclusions. We must distinguish between permanent and temporary—or limited—exclusions. We must also be careful not to extrapolate a small sample to a national level. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern in this area. We want to consider carefully the whole matter of exclusions, who is carrying them out and why and the general background to them. I hope that we shall be able to find the right answers to support our heads and teachers in the difficult job that they are doing.

Statistics

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people are now entering higher education; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.

Mr. Boswell: The Government's policies have led to record student numbers in higher education. More than 30 per cent. of young people entered higher education in 1993, compared with around one in eight 10 years ago.

Mr. Clappison: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain now has a higher graduation rate than many of our European Union competitors and that 50 per cent. more students now gain a first degree than in 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of carping, Opposition Members and their Commission on Social Justice would have done better to study the successful Conservative policies which have enabled that to take place?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is entirely right in pointing to our achievements in that direction and, in particular, the fact that we now have the highest graduation rate in Europe. That does not entirely transmit itself to the Opposition Benches. Every time an Opposition Member comes up with a sensible proposition, someone tends to end up being sacked.

Mr. Bryan Davies: After that orgy of self-congratulation, and after Prime Minister's Question Time, will the Minister take his fellow ministerial team to No. 10 Downing street to discuss a petition received by the Prime Minister this morning, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and myself, on behalf of the higher education sector—students, staff, administrators and vice-chancellors—protesting at the under-funding of higher education by the present Government?

Mr. Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the retention of his somewhat dangerous portfolio. He has never told the House what proposals he would make for the resourcing of higher education. I can tell the House that, in the last public expenditure survey, we were able to produce a real terms increase, to a record level, in the proportion and amount of higher education funding in this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We have the highest student numbers and the best resourced higher education in our history.

Mr. Batiste: Are the Government committed to the principle of uniformity of standards across each class of degree across all universities in the country? If so, how does the Minister intend to ensure that that principle is observed in practice?

Mr. Boswell: We are absolutely committed to the maintenance of high standards. It is, of course, primarily for the academic community, through its higher education quality council, to ensure that degrees mean what they say and are uniform throughout the various institutions, and that is a matter to which it is giving the closest attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Prime Minister confirm the complete absence of any mention of privatisation of the Post Office in the last Tory party manifesto? Is he aware of the complete absence of any public support for that latest piece of Government dogma? Will he now take this opportunity to do the country a service and rescue the President of the Board of Trade by withdrawing that absurd proposal?

The Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, we are considering the results of the consultation exercise that was launched in the summer. [Interruption.] I am surprised to hear Opposition Members scoffing. I thought that in the new politics the Labour party favoured consultation.

Mr. Brooke: If Mr. Al Fayed requires a forgery from The Guardian to resolve his conscience, what, in my right hon. Friend's mind, does that tell us about Mr. Al Fayed or The Guardian, or both?

The Prime Minister: I think that many conclusions may be drawn from that, some of which may well be drawn from the investigation that the Serjeant at Arms himself is carrying out into the affair. Certainly, whatever is uncovered, I doubt whether it will be to the credit of the principal people concerned.

Mr. Blair: To return to the Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), on Post Office privatisation, there is more than a whiff of retreat in the air. If the Prime Minister does retreat—[Interruption.] Is he aware that, if he does retreat on that, he will be acting wisely, because if he is going to consult the British people, the vast majority of them—and, I believe, a majority in this House—want a modern Post Office with greater commercial freedom, delivering a cheap and reliable service, and that the best way of achieving that is to retain it in public ownership, run it as a public service and serve the public interest?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly share with the right hon. Gentleman the wish to make the Post Office business strong, competitive and able to deliver the services that people need. Of course, a large number of improvements have been made over the past few years, most of them opposed at the time by Opposition Members. In 1981, we separated out Telecom and introduced the £1 monopoly limit, introducing competition and allowing a thriving courier industry to develop. In 1990, we sold Girobank. All those changes were opposed by the Opposition, who now take credit for the success of the Post Office as a result of our policies.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the actions of Mr. Preston of The

Guardian? Not only has he been using House of Commons writing paper to forge letters; he has been forging other people's signatures—and this from a man who is on the Press Complaints Commission. Should he not resign from that body at once?

The Prime Minister: Over many years, The Guardian and its present editor have from time to time thundered against general standards in public life. It is, of course, the right of the press to do that; I simply invite its members to observe their own standards.

Mr. Ashdown: But is the Prime Minister satisfied with the promptness, accuracy and frankness with which his Chief Secretary to the Treasury has responded to questions over past weeks and months? Are those the standards by which he would wish his Government and their Ministers to be recognised?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, and some other hon. Members, may be wholly satisfied with their own blameless pasts in every respect. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made the position entirely clear, and I accept his word.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that so-called investigative journalism has sunk to a new all-time low? Does he also agree that, if a newspaper is found to have used the name of the House to give false authority to its activities, that newspaper deserves to lose the respect and confidence of the House?

The Prime Minister: I believe that a diverse and wholly independent press is a very important protector of our system of democracy. I hope that there is no dispute about that.
What is particularly sad is the casual abuse of what were once high and expected standards. If it is now commonly accepted in journalism that the end justifies any means, I believe that journalism will regret stooping to that standard. I hope that that is not the case; I believe that honest, factual journalism remains important to our democratic system. Systematic deception, fraud and collusion are certainly not what we expect from a free press.

Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hall: This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I delivered a petition to No.10 Downing street on behalf of thousands of pensioners in Warrington, calling on the Government to abandon their proposal to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. from next April. Is the Prime Minister aware that half the 36,000 claimants of income support in Halton and Warrington are entitled to claim only cold weather payments and that many other families in fuel poverty receive no help whatever? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he recognises that to be a true problem, that he will abandon the VAT increase, and that he will ensure that all low-income families receive fuel credits weekly when there are cold spells during the winter?

The Prime Minister: So that no one who may be listening to these exchanges can be in any doubt, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, while he says that he


opposes VAT on fuel, he is in favour of a carbon tax, which would have exactly the same effect on people? Will he also acknowledge that measures worth around £2.5 billion over three years have been put in place—[Interruption.]It is no good Opposition Members pointing and shouting. They cannot on the one hand oppose VAT on fuel, and on the other hand support a carbon tax which would have precisely the same effect on the people whom they claim to be defending.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree with that great editor of The Manchester Guardian, C.P. Scott, who said:
Comment is free but the facts are sacred"?
Does he agree that certain standards of journalism have sunk below the level that one would expect in a free and fair democracy?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The press rightly demands the highest standards from Parliament and we have a right to expect the highest standards from the press.

Dr. Marek: If the Prime Minister reads in Hansard what he said at Question Time last Thursday, he will realise that he answered one of the questions in a rather silly way. I hope that he will now give me a considered reply to that question. Why is he prepared to countenance devolution for the Province of Northern Ireland but not for the countries of Wales and Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I must tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, if he does not understand the difference in the history of Northern Ireland, he certainly should do so before sitting in the House. Secondly, there is a well established system of local democracy and government in Wales and Scotland which does not apply in Northern Ireland.

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael Neubert: Reverting to the subject of earlier exchanges, what would be my right hon. Friend's reaction if the Lord Chancellor were to include a known criminal among his appointments to the magistrates bench? Is it not equally unacceptable that the editor of

The Guardian should sit in judgment on his fellow editors as a member of the Press Complaints Commission when, on his own evidence, he has been party to a forgery?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Press Complaints Commission and for the conscience of the editor of The Guardian.

Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoon: Why are the Government threatening to cut housing benefit for hundreds of thousands of pensioners simply because they have spare rooms? Why is the Chief Secretary frightening pensioners with the prospect of having to move house just because they have raised their children and want to live out their retirement in their family home? Does the Prime Minister have any confidence in the Chief Secretary, particularly on matters of accommodation?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system of housing benefit that we have in place is more generous than he will find anywhere on the continent. It is necessary to ensure that a proper balance is kept between that and the taxpayer.

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in stark contrast to that lot opposite, we are united behind our leader? To put the issue of The Guardian into perspective, is my right hon. Friend aware that Janice had a shock this morning, as I think did my right hon. Friend, because it said that David Evans was sponsoring Bambi. That is how ridiculous The Guardian is. If my right hon. Friend raised £79,000 to become leader of our party, would he put it in the Register of Members' Interests? This shows that that lot opposite are a bunch of fiddlers, because their leader has not done so.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been accused of many things over the years, but I do not think that anybody would credibly accuse him of being a sponsor of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister list the Tories who are members of quangos since last week he listed the Labour members? Will he also give the costs?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would prefer a much longer list of those Labour members of quangos that I did not yet mention. If he is so against quangos, will he perhaps explain why he wants to create a very long list of them, which I will happily read to the House if the hon. Gentleman presses me? Those are the


new quangos that the Opposition thus far are committed to establishing. The hon. Gentleman would be better off looking at his own policy than trying to misrepresent ours.

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday that the regime in our prisons is to be toughened up and that privileges are to be earned is widely welcomed, especially by the victims of crime? With that in mind, will he ensure that all victims are consulted before prisoners are granted any home leave?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary yesterday. He intends to ensure that privileges are earned and are not available as a matter of right, and that home leave and

temporary release will be granted only after rigorous assessment of risk to the public. As he has said on a number of occasions, conditions in prisons should be decent but austere. I believe that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — "The Guardian"

Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make arising from a submission that I received yesterday from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) regarding the conduct of The Guardian newspaper. I told the House yesterday that I had commissioned a report from the Serjeant at Arms on certain aspects of this matter. I have to tell the House that, having now had the opportunity to reflect on all the aspects of the matter which have been brought to my notice, I have decided that it merits further attention. I am accordingly prepared for a motion to be given precedence at the commencement of business at 3.30 pm tomorrow. For the avoidance of doubt, the essential issue to be covered is the alleged action of The Guardian in representing that a letter sent by it to the Ritz hotel, Paris was sent in the name of an hon. Member of this House.

Points of Order

Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that during the debate yesterday the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made it clear that, no matter what decisions were taken, either in the House or in the Privileges Committee, he would follow his own course of action. He said that he intended, as he inevitably will, to take a tape recorder into the meeting, to take notes of that meeting and to issue a press release, whether or not that was authorised by the Committee or by the House. In those circumstances, may we look for some advice from you, Madam Speaker, on what action should be taken by the Chairman of that Committee, its members and, indeed, by the House? The very least that should happen is that the Serjeant at Arms should be warned to be outside the door of that meeting room possibly in order to remove the right hon. Gentleman if he persists in that act.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be answering his own point of order. I do not rule on hypothetical matters. We must wait and see the action taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order once I have ruled on it and I have done so.

Sir Peter Emery: It is a separate point of order. Is it not the case that it is clear from Standing Order No. 118 that the only time that the publication of Committee proceedings is not a breach of privilege is when the Committee has decided to take evidence in public?

Madam Speaker: I do not give advice on such matters. With respect to the right hon. Member, I have already answered the point of order that has been raised on this matter. Much is hypothetical at the moment. I shall rule when it may be necessary to do so.

Mr. Peter Butler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I will take no further points of order on that matter.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on the statement that you have just made. Would it be in order for the House to decide tomorrow to sit in private to discuss The Guardian?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that if I suggested that it were, the hon. Member would be the first to oppose me.

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to your statement, Madam Speaker, will you please confirm that

our discussions tomorrow will not in any way be inhibited by sub judice rules should the editor of The Guardian face criminal charges, as he ought to?

Madam Speaker: Again, I am faced with hypothetical questions. This is a very practical House and I hope that I am a very practical Speaker. I deal with matters as they arise—I do not bring out my crystal ball in advance.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not asking a hypothetical question. I was asking you to rule on whether Standing Order No. 118 makes it absolutely clear that the only time publication of matters being dealt with by a Committee is not a breach of privilege is if the evidence is taken in public. Is that not what Standing Order No. 118 states?

Madam Speaker: Standing Order No. 118 is there for every hon. Member to see. I should have thought that the right hon. Member, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, would know the answer to that one.

Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Might not a threat of a breach of privilege affect other hon. Members in that they might believe that what they say may be taken down and used outside the Committee?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of these points of order. We are going to get on with business.

Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a quite different point of order.

Mr. Hall: You will recall, Madam Speaker, that I secured Question 2 during Prime Minister's Question Time. I asked about VAT on fuel, but the Prime Minister's response was to ask me a question. What redress do I have to enable me to respond to the Prime Minister? Is it Prime Minister's Question Time or is it not?

Madam Speaker: We are about to enter a new Session. I suggest that the hon. Member tables many questions to the Prime Minister and I shall try to call him.

BILL PRESENTED

FIREWORK SAFETY

Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Jon Owen Jones, presented a Bill to restrict the sale to the general public of those fireworks which do not comply with Categories 1-3 of BS1174; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Pensions (Divorce)

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law so as to provide for the equitable division of pensions in the event of divorce.
I do not expect this to be a popular Bill here, as the House is full of powerful, rich men, and a few women, who have benefited enormously from their long-term relationships with their spouses but, if anything goes wrong, they might want the matrimonial assets, such as pension rights, to be theirs alone rather than being divided equally. In place of that selfish and potentially nasty attitude, my Bill would insert fairness, justice and common sense into the distribution of assets—especially pension assets—in the event of divorce.
At the moment, the system is unfair. After the matrimonial home, pension rights are the single most valuable asset in a marriage. Indeed, the pension rights are often more valuable than the matrimonial home. On divorce, it is usually the wife who loses all right to a claim on those assets. That is manifestly unfair. There is equal input in a marriage but, after divorce, there is inequality. One party goes on to a prosperous future, with the help of the pension assets, while the other—usually the wife—lives in hardship. There is a rising divorce rate–171,000 divorces in 1991—so a growing number of women find themselves in that position. They become reliant on the state for financial support. That is wholly unnecessary and could be avoided by a fairer division of assets, including pension rights. It is a waste of public money to have to support the woman while the man walks away with all the assets.
In Scotland, under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, pension assets are considered part of the matrimonial property. Their value is determined and they can be divided, but in England and Wales it is left to the discretion of the courts, which usually ignore pension rights because they say that they cannot overrule the pension fund trustees or the trust fund rules. That is not right, and the law should be changed in England and Wales.
In Germany and other countries, there are different laws. German law explicitly incorporates the idea of community of property within marriage. Assets acquired by either partner during a marriage are regarded as assets of the partnership, and are split down the middle on divorce, when the pension rights accumulated during the marriage by both partners are summed and compared. Half the difference is transferred from the account of the spouse with the greater record to the account of the other spouse. Apportionment of pensions, as that splitting is sometimes called, is also in operation in the state of California, in Canada and some other places. We should introduce it in this country.
Certain court cases, such as Brooks v. Brooks, offered hope that the situation would be changed, but that was a false hope, because they were specific cases with highly specific circumstances, and the principles could not be applied across the board. The law needs to be changed, and that must be done by Parliament.
The Government's initial attitude was to await the important reports being produced on pensions, such as that of the Pensions Management Institute, and the Goode report. But those reports have now appeared. The PMI

reported in May 1993 and the Goode committee in September the same year. Now the Government's attitude has changed. They now seem to regard the matter as too difficult to legislate on, and are quietly dropping any prospect of legislative change.
The White Paper published in June said:
There is at present no clear evidence of the extent of the problem. A detailed research programme will be undertaken to ascertain the extent of the problem before the issue is considered further".
But there have already been two major reports on the problem, and they have made it absolutely clear that the law must be changed. The inequality is manifest. Indeed, I have been told of surveys revealing that nine out of 10 women in this country die in poverty. Pension inequality must be at least a small factor behind that, and it should be altered.
My Bill would include a number of measures, and would allow all pensions to be regarded as the assets of a marriage, which should be divided equitably in the event of divorce. It works on the principle that a settlement between the two parties should take place in the first instance, but that, if that cannot be agreed, the court should have the flexibility to settle the distribution of the matrimonial assets on a equitable basis. That could still provide for a trade-off of such assets. For example, the pension rights could go to one party and the other could have the matrimonial home in exchange.
My Bill also provides for the pension assets and rights to be divided, if the court deems it appropriate. After a long period of marriage, each partner would have an automatic claim to the equivalent of half of all the pension assets and rights built up over the period of their relationship. The court would have the power to reallocate occupational and personal pension rights between divorcing parties, and it could decide to take into account all matrimonial assets, including pension fund assets and rights, and apportion them on the basis of a clean-break, once-and-for-all settlement.
The court would also have the power to require the trustees of pension schemes to reduce the value of a member's pension rights by a specified amount, and to provide the same amount as a transfer payment for the benefit of the divorced spouse. Any reasonable expenses incurred in doing so would be recoverable, and that is also provided for in the Bill.
If a pension were already in payment, the court would have the power to balance non-pension assets against pension rights, or to earmark a stated part of a member's pension for the benefit of a divorced spouse. The court could also order the pension scheme authorities to give full consideration to a divorced spouse as the possible recipient of a dependant's pension, if that would lie within their discretion.
The court could also order a scheme member to take out appropriate term or whole-life insurance in favour of a divorced spouse. If that individual did not keep up the payments, the spouse would have the right to be notified, and to bring the case back to the court.
If the court decides to divide pension rights, it should be calculated on a cash-equivalent basis unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court. The court, under my provision, can direct the transfer of payments to another pension arrangement entered into by the spouse. In respect of a deferred lump sum due to be received in the future, the allocation of the proportion to


the ex-spouse can also be ordered by the court to be paid at that future date. Under my proposals, a minimum of 20 years' marriage would have to be guaranteed before the rights were automatic. By doing that, I was looking to protect older women who find themselves divorced and in unfair hardship.
Those are the main provisions of my Bill. I do not say that it is perfect, because it is a complex subject. But I think that a lot of the imperfections in it could be ironed out by the Government if they brought forward their own legislation, or in Committee if the Bill got there.
I have received representations that 20 years is too long. Ian Aitken, the Pensions Management Institute president, said that 20 years
is a very long time in the current climate. Under UK pension legislation, pension rights must be preserved if a member remains in a pension scheme for 2 or more years. In the circumstances, there is much to commend pension splitting after 2 years of marriage… this would be in line with the current divorce legislation that says a divorce can take place after 2 years if both parties consent. If you feel that 2 years is too short a period, then may I suggest that you insert a period of 5 years for pension splitting—this would be in line with the period of separation if the parties do not consent to the divorce.
The case for a shorter period could also be put.
The Bill is not a panacea, and neither is it an excuse for not substantially increasing the basic state pension. That needs to be done, but the Bill is a small righting of a current injustice. It is supported in principle by the organisation Fairshares, and its name is what the Bill is all about—fair shares.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Joyce Quin and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

PENSIONS (DIVORCE)

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law so as to provide for the equitable division of pensions in the event of divorce: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Opposition Day

12TH ALLOTTED DAY

Energy Conservation Bill

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's action in blocking the Energy Conservation Bill which was introduced by the Right honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with support from all parties; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill itself in the coming session.
After the large number of debates on the private Member's Bill, some hon. Members may wonder why the Liberal Democrats feel that the Energy Conservation Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is important enough to warrant a further debate today.
I shall start by addressing what the Bill calls for. It places a duty on local authorities to promote energy conservation and a requirement on them to carry out energy audits. That collection of information would show how resources could best be used to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
The Bill is simple, practical and effective, yet the Government amendment today argues—if argues is a suitable word—that the proposals are deplorable, unnecessary and an example of what is apparently
the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats".
That is an extraordinary accusation from a Government who have certainly used deplorable tactics to block a Bill that has such widespread support across the parties—including Conservative Members.
For example, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said in a letter to the director of the Association of Conservation of Energy:
I most certainly endorse the Bill…I will certainly encourage my colleagues to put their names to the EDM.
That comes from the deputy chairman of the Conservative party.
The Government amendment is all the more extraordinary, given their own muddled approach to the Bill. A majority of the House—almost 400 Members—have declared their support for it, including the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). He chaired the Environment Select Committee when, in its fourth report, it concluded from its investigation into energy efficiency in buildings that
present Government assistance—on energy conservation—through the home energy efficiency scheme, the green house programme, the housing investment programme and the establishment of the energy saving trust—welcome and worth while initiatives although they are—does not constitute a sufficiently comprehensive nor an adequately funded programme of action.
Yet apparently the Minister will speak later tonight. in support of his Government's amendment.
Nor is support for the Bill apparent only in the House. It is backed at every level by every major environmental organisation, every major society that represents the elderly, people with disabilities and those on low incomes, and many others. More than 500 parish, town and community councils have declared support for the Bill. More than 160 local authorities have called for it. As they will be directed to act under the Bill, their support is both particularly welcome and particularly instructive. That support proves how important they feel the issue is. I might add that it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how many hundreds of letters the Department has received from parish, community and town councils across the country supporting the Bill.
In response to the Bill, the Government have argued that it is not necessary to place a statutory requirement on local authorities regarding energy conservation. Yet without that, the Bill would not ensure that local authorities acted. If we took out the statutory requirements, the Bill would simply give councils the power to do that which they already have the power to do. That would certainly be an example of ministerial muddled thinking.
The best local authorities may act anyway already, but action from only the best will not provide the national impact that the Bill is designed to achieve. In that context, it is certainly deplorable that, despite the huge support that the proposals for energy conservation received—almost 400 Members of Parliament supported it—the Government blocked it on Report and Third Reading. The introduction of 216 amendments and seven new clauses at that late stage meant that the time allocated to the Bill inevitably expired, and it was successfully talked out.
The Government's amendment today says that the Bill is unaffordable and that it
would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government".
That is ludicrous, as the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, who will sum up tonight for the Government, should know full well, given his previous unconditional support for the Bill. Ministers have said that to draw up energy conservation plans will be a costly process; that it will be money wasted on bureaucracy, not energy efficiency. That was the reason given by Ministers in the debate on Report when it was apparent that they had blocked the Bill. Yet that argument assumes that local authorities would be required to carry out a full energy audit for all dwellings. The Bill does not require that. It simply demands an audit of the best method of achieving energy savings.
The Government's accusation that the Bill would cost too much, and that between £11 million and £23 million would be required before energy savings were made is simply incorrect. That calculation is based on a costing carried out by two local authorities of the task of a full energy audit of every property. The Bill does not require that. It requires every local authority to identify the best and most cost-effective way of saving energy.
The Association for the Conservation of Energy asked the two local authorities to cost the full audit to show what the cost would be if that was the way in which a local authority chose to proceed. But the Bill does not say that an audit is the best way. Each local authority will

decide the best methods to use in its area. That may differ between local authorities from Cornwall to Durham to Thanet.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how a local authority could introduce energy-saving measures for individual properties that have particular problems and require attention without investigating those properties?

Mr. Taylor: Many local authorities will know of building structures, such as blocks of flats erected during the 1960s, which are particularly energy-inefficient, and they may want to identify the level of that inefficiency and programmes to deal with it. The Bill asks them to look at the most cost-effective way to cut the energy bill. It does not require them to identify every property in one year, as that may not be an efficient way to go about this business. The aim of the Bill is that the best, most cost-effective and energy-efficient method is found and acted on to deliver energy savings of up to 30 per cent. I simply do not believe that every authority would engage in the process of looking at every individual dwelling.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position within the Liberal Democrat party.
Many of us read "Costing the Earth", the Liberal Democrats' 1991 policy document, which they now disown and say was not their policy. Some of us believed that there was a consensus in the House to introduce VAT on fuel—it was Liberal Democrat policy and the candidate who opposed me in the general election campaigned for it—so we were somewhat surprised at the Liberal Democrats' reversal in policy. Will the hon. Gentleman now give a commitment on behalf of his party that, if councils go ahead with that energy audit, even though they may not be obliged to do so under a Bill, the Liberal Democrats will then support councillors who decide to put up council house rents to pay for the energy-efficient measures being put into council houses?

Mr. Taylor: Under the Government's current rules on the ring fencing of councils' housing budgets, that investment would probably be required to be recouped from rents. However we expect people to benefit from energy-saving measures because they would cut their bills, including those increased by VAT on fuel. At this stage, I do not want to go too far into the Liberal Democrats' previous policy. Suffice it to say that we looked at the possibility of VAT on fuel, and the manifesto on which we fought the previous general election specifically ruled it out. To have looked at something and then decide that it was not a good idea strikes me as more honourable than to fight an election saying that one would not do something and then do it afterwards.
Ministers have defended their destruction of the Bill also on the ground that the proposals would force people to have energy conservation measures in their homes. They have obviously not read the Bill because not a word of it requires that. The Government seem intent on destroying the Bill for reasons of their own, not for the given reasons. At least their amendment today is unambiguous on the subject, in contrast to their previously stated partial support and practical opposition.


Ministers' action in blocking the Bill on Report goes to the heart of our process of government. We have heard much recently of the sleaze that seems to have become commonplace within the Conservative party. The Government constantly tell us that the scandals within their ranks are being exaggerated by the media and Opposition and that our system of government is in safe hands. In my view, the sleaziest actions of the Government can be found not in the occasional financial scandal but in the systematic abuse of the House's procedures. Nothing is as sleazy as the Government's technique for blocking private Members' Bills. This parliamentary year, Ministers managed to block not only the Energy Conservation Bill but the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which both had majority support on both sides of the House and throughout the country.
So whom do the Government represent? Is it the people or the Treasury and self-interest? It left a sour taste to see the Government table more than 200 amendments after the Bill had passed through its Committee stage, in the sure knowledge that that would mean that the Bill could not proceed, despite the fact that it had the support of more than half the Members of the House. It leaves an even more sour taste to see former supporters of the Bill become loyal Government opponents of it as soon as they gain ministerial office.

Mr. Peter Butler: As someone who has not gained ministerial office, I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to reply to one point. He makes a good point when he says that the Government were wrong to block the Bill on the ground that it would cost too much to insulate a lot of houses. I do not recall that from the debate at which I was present on 22 April. The hon. Gentleman was not present at that debate, but may have read the proceedings in Hansard. If that was why they blocked it, it would be a ridiculous basis on which to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite its enormous cost, the Bill's passage would not result in a single dwelling being insulated?

Mr. Taylor: I believe that it would result in that, but the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill is about considering the problem and identifying ways to overcome it, not requiring people to insulate their houses directly. It is a process of setting out the identification of the problem and the ways to tackle it. It would be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman asked the Ministers that question; they have repeatedly referred to the cost of the Bill as a reason for opposing it.
The Government believe that the tactics used to defeat the Energy Conservation Bill were acceptable—but they believe that they have taken adequate action to encourage energy efficiency. In fact, in spite of the Government's Helping The Earth Begins At Home campaign, energy use by the domestic sector is increasing. In 1993, total domestic energy use increased by 3 per cent. That trend continued in the first half of 1994, when domestic energy use increased by a further 6.2 per cent. on the first half of last year.
Furthermore, it is significant that, after several years of decline in the UK's energy ratio—the amount of primary energy needed to produce a unit of gross domestic product—it has begun to increase again. Since 1990, the actual energy intensity of the UK economy has steadily increased. Therefore, the increase in energy use cannot simply be attributed to economic growth. It is obvious

from that that the Government's measures to improve energy efficiency are simply not delivering the goods. Not only has the energy ratio increased, but sales of energy-efficient goods continue to be below the 1989 figures.
The Energy Conservation Bill is simple, and will place a duty on local authorities to improve energy conservation. The Environment Select Committee emphasised the importance of real action to improve energy efficiency when it said:
The UK is bound by international obligations concerning the global environment. It also has domestic responsibilities which require it to address both fuel poverty and ill health. We believe an integrated package of measures therefore needs to be co-ordinated between several Government Departments in order to turn convictions and commitments into action.
Let me sum up why Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill is so important—socially, environmentally and economically. First, the social benefits of the Bill are obvious. Throughout the country, many homes are cold, damp and costly to heat. More than 7 million households cannot afford to heat their homes—homes occupied by elderly people, people with disabilities and people with low incomes. It is estimated that there are more than 40,000 deaths each winter as a result of inadequate heating. With the second-stage increase in VAT on fuel still to be introduced, action to tackle that could not be more immediately necessary.
The Energy Conservation Bill would help alleviate that misery among low-income groups. By insulating houses and improving heating systems, energy savings of as much as 30 per cent. can be made, and the Bill would help to identify the ways of doing so. However, the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, who will reply for the Government, knows that—he backed the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am simply trying to understand what the Liberal party policy is on energy efficiency. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House unequivocally: does it or does it not support VAT on fuel? Also, as the hon. Gentleman is going into the Bill in such detail, will he tell us whether he has done any detailed costing as to what it would cost the country to implement?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware by now that we have opposed VAT on fuel, and continue to do so. I hope that he will join us in opposing the second-stage increase in VAT that will come through—contrary to the platform on which he fought the previous general election.
I have already discussed costings. The Government have put forward figures at the highest possible end of the scale, in which every single property is identified. On the Government's figures, that would cost between £11 million and £23 million, on the basis of surveys. We have argued that that is not what the Bill requires. It will cost very little to implement the Bill. Some local authorities will be able to do it at almost no cost, using their existing personnel.
However, the key point is that, without the Bill, we cannot be serious about the concerted action that is needed, and we agree with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West in his previous incarnation off the Government Benches, and with the Select Committee, that it is the most sensible use of


resources if we are to reach the Government's own targets, which patently, on the figures that I have given, we are failing to reach.
Secondly, the environmental benefits of the Bill should be obvious. The Bill is designed to help people conserve natural resources and reduce emissions of greenhouse and other gases. The domestic sector in the UK is responsible for nearly a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions. At a time when air pollution and its adverse effects on health are causing increasing concern, the Government should support a measure that will cut emissions.
Recent evidence suggests that the generation of electricity and the resulting emissions have contributed to the rise in asthma attacks in recent years. The number of people suffering from asthma has doubled—it now affects one child in seven, and 2,000 people die from it each year. The Bill would help to cut the emissions that are exacerbating such illnesses.
The Government have recognised those arguments and have pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the air to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Bill would reduce the amount of energy that people need to heat their homes and would help achieve the important goal that the Government are signally failing to achieve. The Government have identified improving energy efficiency as
likely to be the most cost-effective means of limiting the environmental impact of UK energy consumption".
That quotation is from the consultation paper "UK Strategy for Sustainable Development".
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed summed up the Bill's social and environmental benefits when he said:
Energy conservation makes sense, whether one views it from the perspective of global warming or from that of pensioners struggling to keep warm."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1142.]
The Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency who will be summing up for the Government knows that: he lobbied for the Bill.
In the economic context, at a time when so many people are unemployed, the Bill would help to promote economic regeneration by providing jobs and work for local businesses. The technology, equipment and materials already exist to make homes easier to heat at less cost. The companies exist to carry out the work and the unemployed are waiting for that work. The Minister knows that, too, and should not need telling. He was one of the original supporters of the Bill.
On 2 December last year, he said at the formal promotional launch of the Bill:
I am very glad to support the Energy Conservation Bill. It is a measure that is long overdue. I shall urge my colleagues who have been successful in the ballot to adopt it and I shall urge the Government to support it.
However, he need not feel too embarrassed, because the Government amendment does not reflect the recent position of some Ministers. As recently as Second

Reading earlier this year, the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), expressed concern about some parts of the Bill, but said:
The Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the very important issue of energy conservation. It also provides a useful opportunity for advancing energy efficiency in our housing."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.]
He did not suggest that it was deplorable.
The question should be not whether the Bill is necessary, because clearly the overwhelming majority of hon. Members believe that it is: it has all-party support. The real question is how on earth the Government can table an amendment that not only contradicts the position that Ministers took earlier this year but flies in the face of the view that was advanced so strongly by the Minister who will reply to the debate. At no stage during my speech has the Minister sought to intervene to correct me, so I assume that he agrees that everything that I have said is correct. Perhaps more relevantly, he does not want to put his current position on the record and allow other hon. Members who speak in the debate to comment on it. That is a shame, and I look forward to his explanation—if he has one—for backing such an extraordinary amendment.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in the Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it.
I am delighted that the subject of energy conservation has been raised. It provides an opportunity for a useful discussion on an important subject. Liberal Democrat Members obviously do not agree, because most of them are now leaving the Chamber. As this is the Liberal Democrat Supply day, one would have hoped that they would turn out in all the massive force that they can offer.
The debate gives me a chance to explain to the House the importance that the Government attach to energy efficiency, and the steps that we are taking to encourage it. We attach enormous importance to the efficient use of energy to run our homes and businesses. We aim to spread the message that energy efficiency makes sense when it saves money which can be used to develop businesses, improve homes and living standards and boost the economy.
There has already been significant progress. The United Kingdom economy has grown by about 25 per cent. since 1979, but it still uses roughly the same amount of energy. There is, however, always scope for cost-effective improvements, saving as much as 20 per cent. of current energy demand.
Cost-effectiveness is not the only reason why we continue to beat the energy efficiency drum. Energy efficiency helps to protect the environment by reducing


the threat of climate change, and the framework convention on climate change, which was negotiated at the Earth summit in Rio, commits us to return our emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The convention was ratified in December 1993 and came into force in March.
We are determined to meet our commitments. Energy efficiency can help us to move towards sustainable development. It is our first priority for limiting carbon dioxide emissions, as it can also bring economic and social benefits.
Nearly half the savings we are seeking in the climate change programme are expected to come from reducing energy consumption in the home. Recent research shows that the average household may be wasting more than £100 a year on fuel bills—money which could be saved by implementing few cost-effective measures. The business and transport sectors are both expected to contribute a quarter of savings, and a tenth are expected to come from the public sector.
We have substantially increased our expenditure on energy efficiency. In 1994–95, that expenditure will increase to more than £100 million–17 times the level of expenditure in 1979–80.
We are also providing a framework to encourage energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Office in my Department carries energy efficiency policy forward by promoting cost-effective energy efficiency in the workplace and the home, and strengthening environmental protection by reducing energy use.
There are four main planks to our efforts. We use publicity to ensure that everyone is aware of the importance of energy efficiency; we provide encouragement and technical advice to enable people to take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency programmes; where necessary, we provide financial incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures, and, where appropriate, we promote regulation.
We have a wide range of programmes to encourage improved energy efficiency, each one aimed at a specific audience. For example, we provide publicity through our new campaign, "Wasting energy costs the earth", which encourages energy efficiency in the home. Television adverts —with the dinosaurs Ron, Brenda and Billy—feature the Energy Saving Trust's energy-saving light bulb initiative. Funded by the regional electricity companies of England and Wales and lighting manufacturers, the initiative is expected to win sales of 1 million.
A nationwide tour by the Dino Dome road show, which is being sponsored by a number of leading manufacturers, will give further publicity to energy efficiency measures. It was launched in Oxford last week, and opens in Birmingham on Thursday 3 November. Manufacturers and retailers are synchronising their activities with our campaign, and I can announce today that we shall be holding another energy advice week next year as part of that campaign.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that the Energy Saving Trust, whose initiatives he has just commended and for

which he has expressed support, has declared itself firmly in support of the Bill, and that its chairman has made a particular point of doing so.

Mr. Atkins: We also have a comprehensive package of measures to provide encouragement, information and advice to help people take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency.
We help building professionals and housing manufacturers in four main ways. Our best practice programme provides authoritative advice and information for professionals and managers on improving energy efficiency. It produces energy consumption guides to show energy users how their consumption compares with others, good practice guides and case studies describing good practice, and new practice case studies promoting novel measures.
Secondly, the "making a corporate commitment" campaign invites the chairmen and chief executives of companies and organisations to make a declaration of commitment to responsible energy management. It asks them to formulate, adopt and publish a corporate policy on energy efficiency, to increase awareness of energy efficiency among their staff and to set targets for improving their performance.
More than 1,750 organisations have signed up. The campaign has increased the willingness of two thirds of them to invest in energy efficiency. As that helps the bottom line of most companies in real terms, it is something that they willingly recognise and adopt.
Thirdly, the "green house" demonstration programme made £60 million available over three years to encourage local authorities to develop and apply energy efficiency strategies to their housing. To follow up on that, the Government have advised authorities to make energy efficiency a more explicit and integral part of their annual housing investment programme submissions.
Fourthly, a network of 11 regional energy efficiency officers promotes good environmental management and energy efficiency measures across the United Kingdom. They provide an independent source of advice that enables energy consumers to take action. They are able to signpost the Department's programmes and provide information on energy-efficient techniques and technologies.
Not content with all that, we are providing help for individuals—for example, by promoting home energy rating—

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that any fair energy tax would have to include a full tax on nuclear power to take account of the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal? Does he agree that that cost should fall on the present generation, and that future generations should not have to pick up the tab for our wastefulness?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman takes me down byways that are not appropriate in this debate. Perhaps he would like to table yet more questions on this matter, which I shall endeavour to answer.
The home energy rating provides valuable information for owners and buyers on the energy efficiency of a property. We have established a uniform standard


assessment procedure, and we are working with the mortgage lenders to incorporate home energy rating into their survey reports.
We are encouraging mortgage lenders to offer green loans to help people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We are encouraging voluntary appliance labels to give consumers a guide to the energy efficiency of the appliances they buy.
Where necessary, we provide financial incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures. The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for basic insulation measures and advice for low-income households. Since the scheme began in 1991, more than 800,000 homes have been treated. From 1 April, provision for the home energy efficiency scheme was almost doubled, and the scheme extended to those over 60 and disabled people.
The additional £35 million per year for the United Kingdom will provide grants for more than 200,000 extra households per year, bringing the total number of households receiving grants to almost half a million a year. It will reduce the fuel bills of recipients, save energy and help to fight the threat of global warming. It will also create about 1,500 jobs, boost a specialist sector of the construction industry and materials producers, and improve the housing stock. That is not a bad summary of the assistance being given by the Government. Some £69 million of my Department's estate action funds were spent on energy-related works in 1992£3.
Even in a deregulatory age, we encourage regulation where it is appropriate. For example, the regulations governing energy efficiency standards in new buildings in the United Kingdom have been tightened several times over the past 20 years. Revised regulations will come into force in July 1995. The new regulations include the provision of double glazing, improved insulation, better heating controls for the first time and the need to have a home energy rating. They should lead to an improvement in energy efficiency of 25 to 35 per cent. compared with the previous regulations.
We also practise what we preach. The Government are committed to a 15 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency for the Government estate over the five years to March 1996. The new headquarters for my Department will be one of the most energy-efficient buildings in London. It has been designed to make the most efficient use of energy, and it will have an economical and environmentally friendly combined heat and power system.
But we know that the task of achieving energy efficiency savings is not one which the Government can or should be expected to achieve on their own. We can set the framework, but others have the crucial part to play of encouraging energy efficiency in the home.
That is why we have worked with the gas and electricity industries to set up the Energy Saving Trust to develop and manage new programmes to promote the efficient use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. The trust has a major role in carrying forward the Government's climate change programme. Hon. Members

will know from discussions within the House and elsewhere that arrangements for funding the trust are being reconsidered.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister understand that a full tax on nuclear power, in order to take into consideration decommissioning and waste disposal, would be a remarkable act of energy conservation, because we know that nuclear energy is the most ineffective and inefficient energy form known to man today?

Mr. Atkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which is obsessed with putting yet more tax on everyone, but it is interesting that he is advocating such a tax at the same time as being opposed to VAT on fuel. He must make up his mind which side of the argument he is on.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's plan to educate people to insulate their own homes, if necessary by a contribution from their gas and electricity bills, is a much better way of approaching the subject than asking local authorities, which are not experts in energy efficiency, with all the bureaucracy and costs that that would involve, under the proposed Energy Conservation Bill?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a member of the Select Committee. He has taken a great deal of interest in these matters, and, as usual, as is often the case with Conservative Members, he has put his finger on the exact problems to which I shall refer later. He is of course quite right.
The Energy Saving Trust has made an excellent start and recruited a core of high-quality staff. Its successes so far include a scheme to encourage the sale of low-energy light bulbs to domestic customers, run in conjunction with industry, which has resulted in the sale of three quarters of a million low-energy light bulbs in eight weeks—about the same number as sold in the whole of 1992.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Minister referred a moment ago to the funding arrangements for the Energy Saving Trust having been worked out successfully. Will he elaborate on that, because the director of Ofgas has refused to levy the E factor on the bills, effectively undermining the trust's funding basis? Will that problem be solved?

Mr. Atkins: I did not say that we had resolved those difficulties; I said that they were being reconsidered. It is in the knowledge of the House and probably the hon. Gentleman that the electricity industry has already continued the funding to which it is committed. The matters relating to Ofgas in those discussions are still under consideration. The ball is firmly in Ms Spottiswoode's court at the moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will doubtless tell the House more about that, and in future, when the matters are resolved.
Another example of what the trust has achieved is an incentive scheme for gas condensing boilers, which has resulted in 3,000 rebates of £200 being claimed by owner-occupiers by the end of 1993. As a result—this is good for industry—new manufacturers and products have entered the marketplace.


In addition, a residential combined heat and power scheme has been heavily over-subscribed in the first tranche, and a pilot of local energy advice centres for the domestic and small business sectors, partly funded by the Government, is proving successful.
The Government are also working closely with the European Union to improve domestic energy efficiency. A directive setting energy efficiency standards for central heating boilers came into effect on 1 January 1994. A directive on appliance labelling will introduce labelling for refrigerators, freezers and fridge-freezers by the end of 1994. We are pressing the Commission for action setting minimum energy efficiency standards for other appliances.
Local authorities also have a vital role to play. The energy bill for local authority housing comes to nearly £3 billion a year, so their efforts are crucial if we are to complete our energy efficiency programme.
Central and local government are already working very closely together through the Central and Local Government Forum to carry forward the energy efficiency campaign in local government. The local authority associations have endorsed and encouraged their members to adopt a target of reducing energy consumption in their non-housing buildings by 15 per cent. over a five-year period.
However, as well as energy efficiency on their own estates, local authorities can fulfil a valuable role in pulling together energy thinking in their areas. Industry, schools, further education institutions, commerce and, of course, householders, can all make contributions to energy efficiency, and can produce genuine savings towards our carbon targets.
Local authorities are in a good position to pull together and co-ordinate thinking in their areas, possibly through establishing targets whose achievements can be monitored. We do not believe that that needs to be a resource-intensive exercise; rather, it is one aspect of the functions that authorities should already be carrying out when ensuring that people are thinking ahead and looking for a sustainable future.
We are not complacent in any way about the programme of work, and we are continuing to adapt it to meet changing circumstances. In the future, we hope to use our efforts to emphasise the importance and the value of energy efficiency to all those with an interest. We will continue to work with the Energy Saving Trust to develop our dialogue with industry, and to work with the European Union.
Despite that substantial record and our enthusiasm for energy conservation, we have been concerned about proposals for legislation, which have been in the House this Session, and about a proposed Energy Conservation Bill, which has been widely circulated. We do not believe, for reasons which I think the House has dealt with over a long period, that legislation is the best way forward. We do not think that it will give us the best possible value for money.
First, we know that we must keep public expenditure under control if we are to sustain our hard-won economic recovery. The tight financial settlement for this and future years leaves no spare resources to fund new initiatives; nor is there scope to "absorb" new initiatives by doing

other things at less cost. Any additional cost arising from new functions for local government would have to be found by offsetting savings elsewhere.
In addition, as hon. Members know, we will not add to the burdens of local authorities unless it is unavoidable. We are concerned that the proposed new legislation on energy conservation will impose a further burden, which we believe to be unnecessary. Many local authorities are already doing a great deal to improve energy efficiency.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Any party will understand the concern about expenditure, but given the Government's commitments to cut energy use and emissions in this country, and given the failure at present of policies to deliver that—energy use and energy inefficiency are rising rapidly at the present time — what new initiatives does the Minister believe will deliver this ground? If not the Bill, what about the very substantial list of proposals and recommendations that were made by the Select Committee?

Mr. Atkins: I have to say that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I happen to think that we are beginning to achieve success with energy efficiency, as I demonstrated with the figures with which I opened my speech, and the continuing programme, which, in many areas, has been doubled or even multiplied by a greater factor.
It is certainly the case with industry that, if we can make it understand—it is not proving to be as difficult as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe—that it is in its own financial and commercial interest, let alone the environmental interest of its own operation, to adapt and to adopt energy efficiency programmes, I am sure that we will continue to achieve success in that area, as we have in the past.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although most local authorities are making a very strong effort on environmental measures, one of the authorities that is not is Tower Hamlets, which was recently criticised in The Guardian for failing to use recycled paper?

Mr. Atkins: Tower Hamlets, of course, is an authority which I seem to remember was controlled by the Liberals at one stage. They certainly had an active role in it. I should be interested to have more information about what Tower Hamlets has failed to achieve.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Atkins: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.

Mr. Heald: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because The Guardian was not just criticising Tower Hamlets for not using recycled paper. Indeed, it said:
it even ignores obvious cost-free gestures such as the use of lead-free petrol, CFC-free aerosols and recycled paper…it does not offer pooper-scoopers in parks.

Mr. Atkins: That strikes me as a record about which we ought to know more. Perhaps my hon. Friend could do some research and let us know the results; I am sure that we should be fascinated.
Some 250 local authorities have agreed to sign up to my Department's "making a corporate commitment" campaign. Many authorities—with the exception of Tower Hamlets—are also taking steps to improve


domestic energy efficiency, and my Department encourages it. Local authorities already spend around a quarter of their council house repair and improvement budgets on energy-related work such as new heating systems. Better output can be obtained through the application of the lessons of my Department's green house programme.
The green house programme was launched in 1990 to establish a network of energy efficiency demonstration projects to show local authorities in England how the energy efficiency of council housing could be improved. Over three years, some 180 schemes in 130 local authorities have been undertaken; the results are very encouraging, with schemes achieving fuel cost reductions of up to 40 per cent. and carbon dioxide reductions of up to 50 per cent.
Last year, drawing on experiences gained from the green house programme, we asked local authorities to include energy efficiency as an integral part of their housing strategies and investment programmes. In June, we issued a guide called "Energy Efficiency in Council Housing" to help local authorities to obtain the best value from their resources: it provides useful guidance on how best to develop sound and fully integrated energy policies and programmes.
Similarly, we are keen to avoid unnecessary burdens on central Government, and, above all, unnecessary regulation. As we all know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is having a bonfire of unnecessary controls; we are determined not to introduce new controls as fast as the old ones are turned to ashes.
The Government are keen to encourage energy efficiency, and to do so efficiently. We must make the best possible use of limited resources, and we must not impose unnecessary regulation or burdens on others. In our view, the best way forward is for the Government to work in close partnership with local authorities, businesses, other organisations and individuals. That does not require new legislation, which would be time-consuming and costly to prepare and implement. We prefer to devote our efforts to getting on with the job.

Mr. Beith: The Minister said that it would be costly to prepare new legislation. Has he estimated the cost of preparing more than 200 amendments—a task carried out, quite unnecessarily, by parliamentary counsel in respect of the existing Bill?

Mr. Atkins: I beg to differ. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was associated with the Bill during its Committee stage; I made it clear then that I did not approve of the essence of what the Bill was trying to do in terms of costs and burdens, and that I would have to seek further advice on whether I should consider tabling amendments—which is, indeed, what happened. I make no apology for that. During the assessment of Government

business, one uses officials to produce amendments so that they can be tabled; that is a perfectly legitimate stance, and one from which I do not in any sense resile.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend may recall that, in Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:
The Minister mentioned several matters that might need to be tackled on Report or in another place. I am willing for that to happen".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 10.]
Does my hon. Friend recollect that, when the matter came before the House, the only accusation made was that we had tabled amendments in an attempt to wreck the legislation? There was no acceptance that those amendments were necessary.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. Hon. Members will not want to confuse the issue with the facts, but that is exactly what happened at the time, and exactly what resulted.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister said that he believed that the cost of the numerous amendments was appropriate. Can he explain—in the context of private Members' Bills, which are given limited time on the Floor of the House but can deal with detailed amendments in Committee—why he did not seek the amendments from his officials so that they could be tabled in Committee, but tabled them on the Floor of the House, where they would inevitably wreck the Bill? Will he also explain why hon. Members were seen to vote against their own amendments?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot speak for other hon. Members; I am speaking for the Government. It was clear at the time that we wanted to examine the Bill properly. We allowed it to go into Committee—that was a perfectly legitimate stance—and discussed the matter during what I recall was a particularly amenable Committee morning. I promised the Bill's promoter, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that I would consider the effects of what he was saying, and said that I would have to table amendments and clauses accordingly; and that is precisely what I did.

Mr. Dafis: I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that the Government had not had sufficient time to consider their attitude to the Bill months before it went into Committee. He knows very well that the Bill was the subject of discussion around the House; he also knows that I had a meeting with his predecessor to discuss it well before its Committee stage. The Government had plenty of time, but they failed—perhaps deliberately—to table amendments in time for the debate.
Of course it is clear that, during the Friday Report stage, there was a deliberate wrecking process. Everybody must understand that there were far more amendments than could possibly be debated. I remind the Minister that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed offered to accept some of the amendments, but the Government would not divide on them.

Mr. Atkins: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I reiterate that the position is clear. The Bill was considered in Committee; I said that there were concerns, and that I would table amendments. That is what I did. It is a perfectly legitimate stance. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has experience in these matters,


and he knows that, if there are concerns about a Bill, there is a process for ensuring that it does not come to fruition. That is a legitimate stance that the Government have adopted and will doubtless adopt again, whichever party is in power.
It perturbs me and many of my colleagues that the Liberal Democrats appear to be all things to all people on all issues at all times. [Interruption.] My comment comes not from a central office brief but from experience as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament. Whichever doorstep they are on, they say what people want to hear. They say one thing in their documents, another in their election addresses, another thing here and another in the country. It is time that the canard was nailed.
I am led to believe that the Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of carbon taxes and taxes on energy. I believe that, in a document published some years ago, the Liberal Democrats said that, if it proved
impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes … we will nevertheless press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate on VAT on fuel.
I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) say that they were opposed to VAT on fuel. They cannot make up their minds whether or not they are in favour of carbon taxes and energy taxes.
It is time that we nailed this once and for all. We can no longer allow the Liberal Democrats to go around the country pretending to be against things because they discover that one or two people are against them, when they have said originally that they are in favour of them. This is a classic example, and I know that will be referred to during the debate by my hon. Friends and by my hon. Friend the Minister when he is winding up.
Our position is clear. The Government have a superb record on energy efficiency. We are continuing to devote resources and support to it, and we shall continue to take our case around the country to ensure that industry, local government and ordinary domestic users recognise the importance of this great issue. I urge the House to support our amendment.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on taking the opportunity for a further debate on this important Bill, about which, I am sure the House will understand, I feel a little proprietorial.
This debate needs to be seen in conjunction with last night's debate on transport. The issues spring from the imperative for radical action to protect the natural environment and, at the same time, to shift the emphasis of economic policy.
This is a radical issue because we are talking about shifting the emphasis of economic policy so as to give priority to social welfare, employment creation and the quality of life and not to the spurious and dated addiction to undifferentiated growth, measured by gross domestic product, which it has been assumed for many years is the way to consider things.
It is worth bearing in mind that Sir John Houghton, chairman of the royal commission whose report on road traffic appeared last week—he is a Welshman from Meirionnyddshire—is also chairman of one of the most important committees of the intergovernmental panel on

climate change. In the next few months, the IPCC will announce that the problem of global warming is every bit as serious—and probably more so—than earlier studies led us to believe. I am told that, when the report appears in about three months, it will confirm that stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 is an inadequate target. Whatever the Minister says, the United Kingdom is unlikely to meet even that hopelessly inadequate target. Without a significant change in policy, we shall fail, primarily because of an increase in road traffic and the inadequacy and disarray of the Government's programme on energy efficiency in homes.
The Energy Saving Trust has been mentioned. It is astonishing that a tussle is continuing between the Government and the director of Ofgas over the trust's funding. I have some sympathy with the principle that the director of Ofgas is advancing—that the E factor, just like the K factor in relation to water, is a regressive tax and that the trust should be funded more progressively. It is astonishing that the trust cannot carry forward its programmes because of the deficient way in which the privatisation of gas was conducted and because the director of Ofgas is particularly unco-operative.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Would not one source of funding at least help—the windfall returns that companies receive from advance payment on bills, by which their customers avoided paying VAT? Companies attempted to argue that they had not made a profit out of that, but two companies have now broken ranks and acknowledged that they did make a profit and put money towards the trust. Is it not it time that the rest were a little more honest with the public and a little less worried about a windfall profit for their shareholders?

Mr. Dafis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The way in which companies have been able to make use of advance warning of the imposition of VAT to make considerable savings from advance payments is almost an embarrassment. Of course, they should be ploughing a lot of those resources back into energy efficiency programmes to benefit people who need them in their homes.
We cannot begin to tackle the environmental crisis without the development of a radical policy for transport and domestic energy conservation. I have heard nothing in the debate tonight, and I heard little in the debate last night, as much as I heard of it, to suggest that the Government are considering radical development in those two policy areas.
For the reasons that I have already mentioned, this is a serious matter. It is serious, too, because thousands of people are suffering from fuel poverty, which will be intensified by the imposition of VAT. The compensation programme is welcome, but all hon. Members know that compensation is, inevitably, a blunt instrument.
We may assume that in many cases compensation will cancel out the effect of the increase to 17.5 per cent., but before it was introduced many people suffered from fuel poverty—a serious deprivation. Widespread sickness results from fuel poverty. It is caused by cold and damp in homes and by emissions of pollutants from the energy-generating process.
This is a serious matter because hundreds of thousands of unemployed people should, could and would love to be engaged in the sort of labour-intensive employment that is a part of energy efficiency schemes. We are talking of


no less than a redirection of the productive resources of society to satisfy a crying social need. That should be fundamental to economic policy as well as to environmental and social policy.
It is clear, therefore, that we need a major programme. Perhaps in the course of debates on this subject we have emphasised the not too radical nature of the Bill to gain the Government's acceptance of it. It is now time for us to talk seriously about the matter. We need a major, United Kingdom-wide programme and a co-ordinated and concerted effort. It is not good enough to have a lot of disjointed and separate schemes.
The Bill's provisions are essential to make progress because, first, we must have meaningful targets. The target set for carbon dioxide emissions by 2000 is inadequate and does not deal with what will happen after 2000. We need targets for the reduction of energy use in homes.
Secondly, the Bill is essential because such an ambitious programme cannot be implemented without the active involvement of local authorities, whose housing and environmental health departments are uniquely placed to carry out the work. Conservative Members have suggested that local authorities do not need to be involved but there is no other organisation through which this matter can be properly and expeditiously dealt with.
Local authority housing and environmental health departments have the expertise, the knowledge, the staff and the ability to organise and to commission work. They provide the essential mechanisms without which the work will not be done. Unless they are statutorily required to carry out the programmes, many of them—more than likely, the majority of them—will not do it. The statutory requirement is essential.
There is no conflict between that proposal and the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the energy efficiency programme can be paid for by placing a levy of 2 or 3 per cent. on electricity and gas bills after a programme has been put in place. That is an acceptable method of funding. No contradiction exists between that proposal and those in the Bill, which provides the framework within which such a measure would operate.
Thirdly, the provisions of the Bill are essential because the gathering of information and the drawing up of plans are needed to ensure cost-efficiency.

Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the cost of the scheme that he proposes would be about 3 per cent. of the annual energy bill? If so, is he saying 3 per cent. of £50 billion?

Mr. Dafis: I am not getting into that sort of issue. A Conservative Member suggested that the imposition of a levy on electricity or gas bills after the implementation of an energy efficiency programme in a home would be a sensible way of funding the scheme. Whether the levy is 2 per cent. or more, that is a reasonable way of funding it. Savings in bills would amount to 10, 20, or 30 per cent., although some people have suggested that they would amount to even more. An additional levy, therefore, would be more than compensated for by savings in bills.
The gathering of information and the drawing up of plans are essential to ensure the cost-efficiency of the programme. Without that basic requirement, such activity could be wasteful, inefficient and hit or miss. The Government and Conservative Members are taking their suspicion of local authorities, bureaucracy and planning to ridiculous lengths. There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy in itself. Of course, we need bureaucrats and people to plan and to ensure that schemes are carried out in an organised way with foresight and understanding. The Government's objections to the Bill are nonsense and always have been. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. This is not a side issue but one of major importance. The Bill is simply common sense.
I shall cite Lord Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust, which the Government claim is one of the main instruments necessary to deliver energy efficiency programmes. He said:
The Trust strongly supports the primary aim of the Bill which is to place an obligation on all district and borough councils to create an energy use profile of the dwellings within their area … This information will be invaluable for all organisations attempting to target energy efficiency programmes … The Trust also support the second objective of the Bill which is to place an obligation on the relevant local authorities to draw up an Energy Conservation Plan for their locality, setting out what works would be required in order to achieve a minimum amount of energy savings.
They are the words of one of the people who is supposed really to understand energy conservation.

Mr. Butler: The problem is that the hon. Gentleman wishes to set targets and draw up plans, but that costs a great deal of money, which will then not be available for insulation or other energy efficiency work. Does he recall that in Committee, in answer to a question about whether people would be required to install double glazing, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:
The Bill does not contain a requirement but it calls on local authorities to set out what could be achieved by certain levels of energy conservation. No one is required to achieve those levels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 25.]
In other words, the Bill would not require anyone to do anything to aid energy saving. That is not nonsense but a fundamental objection.

Mr. Dafis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that individual householders should be compelled to carry out energy efficiency work. That was one of the spurious objections raised by Conservative Members in previous debates. The most recent version of the Bill makes it clear that there will be no compulsion to participate. It is clear that there would be no need for it. Of course, some eccentrics might say that they do not want their homes improved even though energy efficiency schemes would save money and provide extra warmth and comfort. There is no element of compulsion in the Bill, and neither should there be. The hon. Gentleman should understand the need for organisation and planning and for local authorities to be able to see the whole picture to make the most efficient use of resources and prioritise the types of property that need energy efficiency programmes first.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill in its latest form, but the motion that we are debating refers to the previous form. If we are dealing with the revised Bill, I would greatly appreciate a copy before I make a


speech—or are we dealing with the original Bill? I apologise for asking, but the motion refers to the previous Bill.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Bill has been revised several times and the part to which I was referring states:
for the avoidance of doubt … nothing in this Act shall be taken as … conferring any power of entry"—
Conservatives spoke of authorities having power of entry into individual properties but we have clarified that point—
on any energy conservation authority to compel any other person to carry out any works or repairs on any property.
I stress that there is no compulsion in the Bill although the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there should be.
I have already quoted Lord Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust. This is a common-sense Bill, which is why he supported it and why it has been supported by so many Conservative Members. It was endorsed for the same reason by the then Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)—which produced an excellent report. His words have already been cited so I shall not repeat them, but I was there when he uttered his historic words. He climbed on a chair in the Jubilee Room, where I was hosting a reception, and declaimed with great enthusiasm his support for the Bill and said that he would be urging the Government to proceed with it.
An extraordinarily impressive array of organisations that work for energy efficiency, which know about fuel poverty and which understand the social and economic agendas, have studied the Bill and support it. Sir Crispin Tickell, the special adviser to the Government on sustainable development, is on record as supporting it. Some hon. Members may recall that, on Third Reading, I asked the then Minister to tell us whether he had been informed of Sir Crispin Tickell's position, and his reply was ambiguous.
Now, however, Sir Crispin Tickell's letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment is available to us. He wrote:
As a veteran non-signer of manifestos or round robins, I am reluctant to bother you on a specific cause. I only do so because I believe that the nature of the Energy Conservation Bill is critical to the success of the work which you and the Government generally have been doing to bring the environment into decision making, and make energy efficiency and conservation a central element in energy policy.
What remains to be said about the importance of the group that he chairs and which offers advice to the Government on how to create a sustainable development strategy? If energy efficiency in the domestic sector is not one of the first steps in moving towards sustainable development, I do not know what is. Sir Crispin Tickell understands the significance of that.
I should be surprised if Sir Crispin Tickell did not understand that he was, in fact, writing to the wrong Minister. He assumed that he needed to persuade the Department of the Environment, but we all know that the objections to the Bill come from elsewhere. The crux of the matter is that the objections come not from the Department of the Environment but from the Treasury, which has probably not even heard of sustainable development. The Treasury's interest is in deregulation and, especially these days, in the selling off of PowerGen

and National Power. That is what lies behind the present agenda. Is it not shameful that we allow such considerations to drive policy?
On Second Reading, I read out a list of Tory Members who were on record as supporting the Bill. Their names are listed in Hansard. The disgraceful blocking tactics—the Minister has now admitted that they were blocking tactics—adopted on Second Reading, led by the people whom I called the abominable seven, meant that those Tory Members did not have to vote or take sides. What are they going to do tonight? Will they support the Government? Will they support the amendment to the motion that deplores a Bill that they endorsed and that they promised their constituents they would support? Will they vote against the motion? If so, what of their undertakings to their constituents and their political integrity? If they betray the trust that their constituents have placed in them, they will have to pay a heavy price, and we know how it will be paid.
The Government must support the Bill in some shape or form or—we would be satisfied with this—they must make their own equally effective proposals. Perhaps that is what the Government have in mind, and perhaps the Minister will tell us about them when he replies. If the Government have their own proposals, they must encompass the provisions of this Bill to be effective. However, if the Government are not prepared to accept the Bill or offer their own equally effective proposals, they will be seen not only as perfidious—I believe that "perfidy" is a better word than "sleaze"—but as irresponsible, as having only short-term considerations, and as rapidly going crackers.

Mr. Barry Field: I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I hesitate to do so in my first contribution to such a debate as the newly elected Chairman of the Environment Select Committee. However, I distinctly heard my hon. Friend say in his closing remarks that the Liberal Democrats had to make up their minds on the issue. He indulges them by crediting them with an intellectual eminence that an objective observer would find quite unjustified. Clearly, to make up one's mind one has to have a mind in the first place.
In 1991, domestic, public and commercial buildings accounted for 43 per cent. of final energy demand in the United Kingdom, contributing half the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide. Noting that fact led the Select Committee to produce, in 1993, a focused report on energy efficiency in buildings. That report has already been mentioned. When it was published, the then Chairman of the Select Committee—now the Under-Secretary of State responsible for energy efficiency—expressed concern that so little progress had been made in implementing energy efficiency since the Energy Select Committee's report on the same subject in 1991.
The Committee's inquiry was undertaken between May and July 1993; 20 groups of witnesses appeared before it, and more than 100 pieces of written evidence were received. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee visited Newcastle and Glasgow to see the work of the agencies involved in improving energy efficiency in


housing occupied by low-income groups. We also visited the United States, to learn about the American experience of least-cost planning and demand-side management.
Our report was well received, and the Government's response was positive in tone, even if not all the Committee's recommendations were accepted in full. Since the inquiry proper, the Committee has continued to pursue the subject of the attitude of the Director General of Gas Supply to the funding of energy-saving measures. I shall say more about that later.
I especially commend the Department for its advertising campaign based on the slogan, "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth". More than 25 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from energy used in the home.
Energy conservation and energy efficiency are not the same thing. It is possible to conserve energy and yet continue to use it inefficiently. It is also possible to improve the efficiency with which energy is used, but also to use more of it. The Committee saw a classic example of the latter phenomenon in the United States, where consumers were encouraged by Government-sponsored money-off offers to buy super energy-efficient refrigerators. The problem was that the Americans bought the fridges but kept their old fridges, too, to store their beer. The net result was an increase in energy consumption.
We discovered that even when there was an attempt to collect up the old fridges as part of the bonus scheme that went with the purchase of more energy-efficient fridges, the old fridges were sold on to low-income groups, usually Hispanic, who could least afford their high energy consumption and running costs. We were told of another similar system—an attempt to take gas-guzzling cars off the road—and those, too, were sold on to low-income groups.
In taking evidence in America—in California, in fact—the Minister himself, when he was Chairman of the Select Committee, observed that there was not a clothesline to be found. Apparently every American housewife uses a tumbledrier—although it is true that much work has been done on producing more energy-efficient tumbledriers. When my hon. Friend inquired why there were no clotheslines in that beautiful sunny climate—incidentally, the peak energy demand there is in summer, because of air conditioning, not in winter as in our climate—he was told that any alteration would interfere with the American way of life, and people's right to decide how to live their own lives. Tumbledriers were apparently part of the American experience; clearly, clotheslines were out. After my hon. Friend made that point, we all carefully looked out of the bus windows wherever we went, but I do not believe that we spotted a clothesline the whole time that we were there.
Having sounded that note of caution, I must add that the Committee found that most measures to encourage energy efficiency lead to reductions in energy consumption, and its recommendations were formulated accordingly.
Some of the least energy-efficient buildings are the houses lived in by those least able to pay high fuel and power bills. In Glasgow the Committee saw how improvements to 1960s tenement blocks could achieve dramatic savings in fuel bills. We therefore called for the

Government's excellent home energy efficiency scheme—or HEES—to be extended, and for investment in such measures to be increased. The Government duly obliged, doubling the provision for HEES in the Budget.
We noted that the imposition of VAT on fuel was welcomed by Friends of the Earth. I cannot lay my hands on the precise part of the evidence, but I recollect that the witness from Friends of the Earth said that he thought that the VAT would be a kick in the pants for energy efficiency.
As for new housing, the Committee supported the greater use of home energy labels, and suggested that mortgage lenders could take the energy efficiency rating of a house into account in their calculations, because lower fuel bills should enable buyers to make higher mortgage repayments, and would also enhance resale value. In their response, the Government said that officials were in discussion with mortgage lenders on that and related subjects; so perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will tell the House about the outcome of those discussions.
On keeping the Government's own house in order, the news is not at all good. Although some Departments have succeeded in reducing energy consumption and bills, others have had less success. The Department's response said that the Energy Efficiency Office was
pressing strongly for greater energy efficiency on the Government estate".
The Minister has told us that the new Department of the Environment building will be energy-efficient, and will incorporate a combined heat and power unit. The Select Committee welcomes that news. However, what the Government say about the EEO makes it sound as though it may be meeting some resistance. Wasting energy makes no sense from an environmental point of view, and in terms of public expenditure too, it is nonsense.
The Department of the Environment needs to get tough with other Departments, especially the Ministry of Defence, which did not even know how much energy it was using, let alone how much it was wasting. The new Minister responsible for energy efficiency is just the man to get tough, and to tell Sir Humphrey to switch that light out. Indeed, we read in the papers this week that Sir Robin Butler's replacement may come from the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to the Cabinet a beauty contest for that post, on the basis of energy efficiency, so that the senior civil servant who has reduced the Government's energy costs most will be appointed as the new Cabinet Secretary. Who knows?
The Government must look ahead and develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions beyond the year 2000. The Committee was somewhat astonished that, despite all the commitments that they had rightly entered into, the Government had failed to map out how they intended to achieve the necessary further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the next century. The Committee found the Government's attitude somewhat complacent. I am sure that the new Minister has brought some fresh ideas with him to the Dispatch Box, and that he will share them with us later.
Setting up the Energy Saving Trust was supposed to be a key part of the Government's strategy for energy efficiency, and for meeting the national target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, as the Select Committee has said before, that work has been stymied by the actions of the gas and electricity regulators.


Unfortunately, the trust has been unable to raise the £1.5 billion that it is generally agreed that it needs to achieve the targets that the Government have set for it.
That is not completely a problem of the trust's own making. It was always envisaged that the money would come from the producers, suppliers and consumers of the energy that needed to be saved. Unfortunately, the electricity regulator has agreed to raise less than one tenth of the sum required, and the new Director General of Gas Supply has so far adopted an unhelpful and even hostile approach towards the trust.
The Committee, under the chairmanship of the Minister, twice summoned Ms Spottiswoode to justify her failure to allow the trust's schemes to go ahead, and twice she failed to convince the Committee that she was right. She came with a remarkable set of preconceived ideas and I likened her to Boadicea in the way in which she gave evidence and, at times, contradicted herself. Has she convinced the Government? How do Ministers intend to resolve the question of the funding of the Energy Saving Trust, and whether the gas regulator will henceforth be playing a full and positive role in that process?
It is estimated that it will cost at least £1. 5 billion to meet the target of reducing carbon dioxide production by 2.5 million tonnes by the year 2000. In July 1993 the Office of Electricity Regulation agreed to £100 million over four years under the supply price control, but Professor Littlechild rejected doing anything similar under the distribution price control which he announced in August.
The EST submitted proposals to Ofgas in July for a £25 million a year package. Ms Spottiswoode has not yet responded, but she looks unlikely to agree to most of the package. Ofgas promised to publish a paper setting out its approach to energy efficiency and the E factor. This was originally scheduled for July, but it has yet to be published, although I understand that the Departments have seen a draft.
Since April, John Hobson—director general of the Energy Efficiency Office—has been chairing an interdepartmental group of officials which is supposed to be working on alternative funding options for the EST. So far, the group has met infrequently and seems to have made little progress. With a gas Bill now looking increasingly likely in the Queen's Speech, there would be an opportunity to introduce some form of levy on gas suppliers to fund energy efficiency, although that would not address electricity. However, another suggestion has been that the Government could change the non-fossil fuel obligation—a 10 per cent. levy on all electricity customers, which goes mainly to support nuclear power, with some money for renewables—to enable some of the money raised to fund energy efficiency. Which—if any—of those options are the Government seriously exploring to secure the trust's future?
As for the environmental duties of the regulators, the Select Committee recommended that the Government place stronger duties on Ofgas and Offer to protect the environment and ensure that the energy sector makes the fullest possible contribution to meeting the UK's commitment to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The Government told the Committee that they could review the duties and powers of Ofgas and Offer if necessary, and the Government should be giving further consideration to that for several reasons.
First, the EST looks unlikely to make a contribution to the year 2000 target. Secondly, opening up the gas and electricity markets to full competition will have far-reaching effects on energy supply and use, which could have an environmental implication. Thirdly, the Government will soon have to consider targets beyond the year 2000.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) commenced the debate by praying in aid the support of parish and town councils. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been. He has certainly not been visiting the grass roots of the parish and town councils in his own constituency, because they are among the worst offenders with regard to energy conservation. The councils either meet in a village hall which has all of the warm welcome of a deep freeze and more draughts than a log cabin, or they sit in their shirtsleeves in a sort of civic sauna.
We heard strictures from the hon. Gentleman about emissions and pollution in the atmosphere. The Liberal Democrat party accepted from the British School of Motoring one of the largest contributions to a political party ever made. That organisation has probably put more people on to the roads of Britain than any other, which shows up that party's hypocrisy in the debate.

Ms Joan Ruddock: In following the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I must say that I rarely find myself having any sympathy with anything said by Conservative Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman made some useful points today, and the Minister will have to rise to the challenge when he tries to respond to the pertinent points made by his hon. Friend.
I come to this debate in support of the motion standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his colleagues, and to deplore the amendment tabled by the Government. The latter is yet another attempt by cynical Ministers to claim exaggerated green credentials for minimalist programmes.
The efficient use of energy requires a degree of strategic thinking and planning that is entirely at odds with the Government's philosophy. While today's debate is quite properly concerned with the domestic sector, we must remind ourselves that considerations of energy conservation and efficiency begin a lot earlier than the electric switch or the gas tap in the home.
The Government have no strategic view beyond market forces. They have squandered the resource of North sea oil, abandoned our coal reserves and failed to set targets for individual energy sectors. They have no strategy for heat conservation at the source of generation, and they have signally failed to demonstrate any real commitment to renewable energy sources.
Combined heat and power is a case in point. Most power stations are only around 34 per cent. efficient, while combined heat and power systems are at least 80 per cent. efficient. The Government have—on environmental grounds, they tell us—set a target to more than double the use of CHP, but they have not spelled out how that will be achieved. The Combined Heat and Power Association states in a briefing produced for today's debate:
CHP can work either in a regulated market—or a free market—but not one in which the energy regulators and the DTI are all pulling in different directions.


Privatisation of the utilities has made energy efficiency much more difficult. The maximisation of profits by maximising sales clearly undermines any energy efficiency objective. The framework of regulation militates against strategic planning and, as we have seen recently, the regulators on their own account may decide not to accept responsibility for energy efficiency.
In the Labour party, we believe that energy efficiency is one of the most important goals of public policy. We propose a national programme of energy efficiency works, with the linked objectives of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and generating substantial amounts of long-term employment. In line with that policy, my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), and a great many Opposition Back Benchers, supported the private Member's Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) at all stages in this House. We join the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) in thoroughly deploring the way in which Ministers destroyed that Bill. It was a modest, but important, measure providing a mechanism for producing an audit of energy needs area by area around the country, and developing a schedule of work which could be carried out to meet those needs. The Government's tawdry tactics in defeating that Bill fly in the face of common sense.
Let me say why the Labour party supports energy efficiency measures. First, there is the scale of the problem. Some £10 billion-worth of energy is wasted every year. There is also the impact on the environment, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. Power stations are major contributors to the production of greenhouse gases, and without a much more comprehensive energy efficiency programme Britain is unlikely to make her proper contribution to the Rio objectives.
In that context, it is salutary to note that the United Kingdom accounts for 3 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, but only 1 per cent. of the world's population. Furthermore, our production of carbon dioxide actually increased in 1991 and 1992 and, although I acknowledge that it did decrease in 1993, we are not fully confident that the Government will meet their targets. Energy efficiency offers one of the best options, not just for stabilising but for reducing carbon dioxide production. Yet I am told—my figures are entirely at odds with the Minister's, so I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will give me some further advice on the subject—that investment in energy efficiency declined in the United Kingdom by 28 per cent. between 1989 and 1992.
As significant as the environmental case for energy efficiency are the compelling social reasons for it. Simply, people ought to be able to afford to keep their homes warm, dry and comfortable. As others have said in previous debates, an estimated 7 million British households live in circumstances in which they cannot heat even one room to the minimum standard recommended by the World Health Organisation.
It is well known and accepted that those who spend the longest periods at home, particularly when sedentary, require the most heat. Yet pensioners, people with

disabilities and mothers with young children, who are all more at home than most, include most of the poorest households. Fuel poverty is a national disgrace. Yet rather than seek a thorough programme of assistance to poorer households, the Government impose the burden of value added tax on fuel. Then they have the audacity to call it a necessary measure to meet the target reductions agreed at Rio. Allowing elderly people to freeze to death is hardly a strategy that commends itself to environmentalists.
The provisions of the Energy Conservation Bill provide the basis of a proper audit of needs, a proper system of planning and proper assessment of priorities. Few Members of Parliament can have undertaken winter surgeries without having constituents, particularly the elderly, complain that they cannot heat their homes. Cost is always a major concern, but so, too, are structural deficiencies, gaps in windows and doors, the leaking roof, the cold corner flat in the concrete block and the frustration of using inadequate heating that then leads to condensation and mould growth. It is estimated that 3 million homes suffer from the latter.
It is surely obvious how many worthwhile jobs could be created by attending to the vital need to improve people's ability to keep warm. In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to several studies of the job creation potential of energy efficiency work in Britain. A broad average showed that, for each £20 million of expenditure per year, about 1,000 new jobs could be created. Then the Government tell us that it is too expensive.
In brief, we could help to conserve our environment, keep people warm, reduce heating costs and create worthwhile jobs. The Government claim to share the same objectives, but their schemes are piecemeal—soon started and soon ended. Schemes come and go. The Minister has already mentioned some of them, including the green house programme. Funding was £45 million last year, £5 million this year and is then to end. There has been an increase in funding for the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the Minister also referred. Of course it is welcome, but there are limitations on the types of insulation that can be undertaken under the scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the funding is to be maintained, or even increased. Even with the current level of funding, it will take two decades to insulate only the low-income households in Britain.
Then there is the Energy Saving Trust. I am surprised that the Minister was able to bring this to mention, given the chaos that exists. The trust was trumpeted as the Government's energy conservation flagship, central to their strategy to achieve their international climate change commitments, but already the trust has said that it doubts its ability to meet the targets set for it.
Clearly, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the trust does not have anything like the resources required to do the job for which it was set up. I believe that it needs £300 million to £400 million a year. It has only £25 million. We are not impressed by the actuality of Government programmes. They give plenty of advice but far too little investment.
Local authorities, by contrast, have done very significant things on very limited resources. In earlier debates my hon. Friends have paid tribute—and I do so again today—to the excellent work of Leicester city council, which has filled cavity walls in almost 13,000


council homes and achieved cost savings of 50 per cent. That council is conducting an energy survey of all its council housing stock.
Newcastle has carried out a project, with the European Commission, British Gas, Northern Electric and British Coal, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the city by the year 2000. Nottinghamshire county council has had a programme of energy conservation work in its buildings for 14 years.
I want to add to those examples my borough of Lewisham. It is a poor borough that has often had great needs to meet in many areas of its work. Yet it has shown considerable imagination in trying to bring better services to its residents. Lewisham has carried out energy surveys of most of its local authority buildings to identify the scope for investment in energy saving techniques. Before the introduction of local management of schools, all schools were surveyed.
Lewisham has recently installed new boilers in schools and other buildings, creating new savings. Energy management systems and boiler controls have led to further reductions. Improvement of the insulation within council housing stock is also an aim, and Lewisham has used money allocated through the housing investment programme to undertake insulation measures on council stock. In addition, the council has undertaken an energy audit of all its housing stock to set a benchmark for improving the energy efficiency of the stock in the future.

Mr. Butler: Does not the fact that those councils have undertaken energy efficiency work demonstrate—more effectively than any Conservative Member could do by merely declaiming it—the fact that the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is unnecessary? Councils can do it now if, as we are told, they want to do it.

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that councils can do it now, and some of them do, but they do so with great difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, most councils in Britain have programmes that are desirable and wished for by their residents, but which they cannot undertake for lack of resources due to Government cuts and restraints on local authority spending.

Mr. Butler: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Ruddock: Let me continue.
We fear that only a minority of local authorities have undertaken energy audits. Most of the councils whose records the Government have applauded and mentioned in debates are Labour local authorities. We applaud those which do the work voluntarily, but if we are to have a nationwide scheme, which is what we need, a nationwide audit and a basis on which to bring homes up to standard nationwide, every local authority must undertake that work—and that will require legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I must correct the hon. Lady. It is not a minority of local authorities that act in this way. It is a huge majority. Even those which are not quite that far down the road have plans to take action in the near future. It is not simply a question of Labour, Conservative, Liberal or hung authorities. It is authorities

of all political persuasions. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in paying tribute to the efforts that they have made.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister is aware that I have just paid fulsome tribute to the efforts that have been made. We may have a debate about this, though probably not in this House. But we should be interested to see the list of those who have been carrying out audits that are in line with the proposals in the Bill that the Government defeated. It seems odd that the Government should have defeated a Bill when it is so easy and desirable to carry out the Bill's proposals and when the Government support those proposals. Why, then, did they choose to defeat the Bill? What the Minister said simply does not add up, and this debate will be pursued.

Mr. Butler: If something can be done and is increasingly being done, why set up an enormously expensive bureaucracy, with further public moneys going towards it, to achieve nothing extra?

Ms Ruddock: There is no evidence whatever that it will be an enormous and costly bureaucracy. I repeat that, if those measures are so desirable and efficacious, it makes sense that all authorities should have a duty placed on them to undertake that work. We all know that, when the work is undertaken, the savings are considerable. In this year alone, the small programme that my local authority of Lewisham has been able to institute against all the odds is reckoned to save £600,000 in that area alone.
We are certain that much more could be done and that, if the Government were really committed to energy efficiency, they would have supported the Energy Conservation Bill. Labour has a comprehensive programme of energy conservation and efficiency, but today I simply emphasise our support for a proper national programme of energy conservation work in people's homes. The work could be carried out free at the point of installation, but funded over a period by a small premium on the unit price of gas and electricity. People would still be better off, because they would save substantially on their energy bills. In short, people would be warmer, the housing stock would be improved, and jobs would be created—not a bad package, as the Minister would say.
I shall support the motion today and I have no doubt that, if the Government do not change their attitude and should the opportunity arise through success in private Members' ballots, someone on the Opposition side of the House will be back to press the Government again and again on this vital issue of energy conservation in people's homes.

Mr. Peter Butler: The closing remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) remind me of the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on an earlier occasion, when he said that this debate would not go away, and that, if the Government were still in power in November—he seemed to doubt it—the Bill would be put back before the House. Although the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber now, I hope that he will accept that we will still be in power in November and that, if the Bill returns, it will again fail to meet approval.


I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I have been practising the pronunciation of "Ceredigion" since the last occasion, when I took advantage of the Official Reporters' skill and referred to him as "the Member for Wales" throughout the debate, which they then corrected in the Official Report. Even in his absence, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do the same again today.
May I start with agreement, especially as we are unlikely to end the debate with it? We all agree that action is needed to secure better use of less energy, not just in homes or offices, be they Government or private, but throughout all the sectors in our society where energy is consumed. I agree with the need for action but not with the need for the Bill, which forms the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats.
Subsequent to the last debate on this matter, I met the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to try to seek common ground. We found quite a lot of common ground, but not enough. When this Bill was last debated, I also took the opportunity to come out in public as having for some time been a member of an organisation known as Friends of the Earth, and to compliment it on some of the excellent publications that it has produced over the years, and the stalwart, ground-breaking work that it has done in looking at problems, including energy conservation. I said that I regretted, however, that, when it strays into party politics, for some inexplicable reason it seems to come down on the wrong side.
Having agreed the need for energy efficiency, we must be clear what we mean by it. We do not mean being able to turn up thermostats and heat houses at an unnecessarily higher level for the same cost. It is certainly not meant in the sense in which one often hears it: "My heating system is efficient," implying that it heats the house to a high temperature. We mean using less energy to achieve the necessary levels of heat. We should be clear about that. In my experience—for instance, in the Palace of Westminster—many rooms are heated to a ridiculous temperature. That is not energy efficiency but simply waste.
Wasting less energy is the other part of energy efficiency. We must use less and waste less. Many of us live in houses where the best we can hope to do is heat the wind as it passes through. Clearly, in such homes, draught-proofing or, in the more extreme cases that we often find in north Buckinghamshire, wind-proofing is the most effective form of energy saving, and is far better than merely adding more heat.
We should therefore be clear that often in this debate we are discussing relatively low technology. We are talking about draft excluders, bits of plastic and rubber nailed to doors, and straightforward secondary double glazing, not exclusively about high technology boilers or the replacement of complete systems.
As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as you are, I hope, familiar with it—my constituency is in Milton Keynes, which, proudly and incontrovertibly, can boast that it is Britain's greenest city. After the last debate on this Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside opened a materials recycling facility that has so far cost some £6 million. He opened it extremely

effectively, and I invite those who have not yet visited the facility to do so, especially the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North.
The waste stream comes into that facility, directly collected from individual houses. I am involved in the audit with some companies to see whether we can involve them as well. The waste is collected from houses in the borough and is then sorted, partly by hand, partly by magnetism and partly by some astonishing system that rejects certain types of plastic and separates them from others.
Next week, the Minister will address a conference in London about what comes out at the end of the waste stream. Opposition Members in particular may feel that it is entirely appropriate that a Minister of the Crown should address a conference about what happens at the end of the waste stream. At that conference, a paper will be delivered by an officer of Milton Keynes borough council. I hope that the Minister will be able to stay to hear that. He will talk about the excellent recovery of energy carried out at that materials recycling facility.
What happens at the end of that waste stream is that chits of molten plastic of a uniform size and type are selected and separated by means of some extremely high-technology equipment, which is basically a large tank of water. The stuff to be collected floats, and the stuff to be rejected sinks. That which floats is collected and returned to a company called Plysu, whose international base is in my constituency, and it recycles it. The cost of so doing is less than the cost of using new materials.
That is an example not of hot air and theory but of practical application, good energy efficiency and recycling practice. Because it takes place in Milton Keynes, I invite any hon. Members with a genuine interest in the subject to visit the facility. I should be happy to arrange such a visit. I formally congratulate the Government on enabling the borough council to raise the necessary funds to do that.
I have in recent months welcomed the challenge issued to the packaging industry last July to deal with waste packaging, to try to allocate by means of the producer responsibility group the responsibility for the cost of that packaging between those who produce it, those who fill it, those who sell it and, to an extent, those who subsequently recover it.
There are difficulties with the present proposals, because they seem to impose an inordinate proportion of the cost on those who produce. The allocation of the cost seems to be in inverse proportion to the representation of that part of the industry on the producer responsibility group. Obviously, someone must correct that. None the less, the initiative is more than welcome, and, in due course, it will put into effect the proper dictum that the polluter pays.
All that will lead to another packaging revolution, accelerating the progress that we have made towards minimal packaging, and therefore minimal waste and minimal use of energy.
In debating the motion, we are debating the Energy Conservation Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which contained fundamental defects. The first, to which I referred in an intervention, is that the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that no one is required to achieve those levels.


To translate that, he means that no one is required to do anything to any single dwelling. It would achieve no insulation—not a single door draught-proofed, not a single window double-glazed, not a single draught diverted or stopped. It follows that it would achieve no energy saving or increase in energy efficiency.
The Bill would merely enable one to look at a map and say that there was a house there that, if it did not already have insulation, would need insulation. I put it in those terms because—I think that I follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed correctly—there would not be, as he interprets his Bill, individual audits of houses. It would simply be said that a specific type of house should have a certain amount of insulation of a general description, but one would have no idea whether it already had it. I repeat, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded in Committee: not a single piece of insulation would take place, and no energy saving would be achieved by the Bill.
The second, and almost alternative, pleading is that the Bill is unnecessary. I know that the right hon. Member for Deptford disagrees with that, but to say that local authorities have already done what the Bill requires must undermine the argument that it is necessary to force them to do it. If they have the power to do it, and if, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and others have assured us, they all want to do it and there is a groundswell of enthusiasm for it, the Bill must be unnecessary.
The Bill would create bureaucracy. It contains a clause to allow the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. There is a clause allowing money to be handed out for that purpose—not for the purpose of insulating or saving energy, but for the purpose of drawing up the audit. Drawing up the audit is relatively simple, to the extent that one can look at a house and say that it should have insulation. If we are going to go further than that, either it can already be done or it is unnecessary to do it. What is necessary is to put money into insulation in specific houses.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to two local authorities on a previous occasion; the right hon. Lady for Deptford—the hon. Lady: forgive me, I was premature—has now referred to many other local authorities. I would argue that, if two have done it, more, or all, could do it.
I believe that any local authority could undertake such an audit today. It could start first thing in the morning, at 9.30 or whatever time it starts work. The Bill is concerned with mandating and forcing that that should be done. That is the crux of the matter, and it was the matter, I believe, on which hon. Members supporting it and the Government opposing it fell out last time—that the Bill mandates rather than permits.
Surely the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I have learnt, if nothing else, in the past couple of years, that, if one is going to mandate the ends, one must also mandate the means.
That brings us back to the central issue of the proposed Bill, to which the motion refers—does it mandate the means? In other words, does the clause—clause 3(4), according to the version of the Bill that I have—which relates to the Secretary of State making regulations to secure the putting into effect of a plan, mean anything or not? If it means nothing, no funds will flow. Authorities

will be in no better financial position than they are now, and could be left to get on with it voluntarily—as many, we are told, are now doing.
If the clause means something, we return to the problem that we would then spend money on the bureaucracy to which I referred. I accept that "bureaucracy" is a terribly generalised and devalued word, much like "community" or "endogenous zone" or any of those clichés, but none the less I think that the House understands what I mean by it. The money will be spent on that rather than on insulation.
Therefore, either we mandate the means—in which case my submission is that it is a waste of money to use it in that way—or we are simply mandating the end without mandating the means, which is a useless and spurious exercise. I therefore reject—

Mr. Heald: I understood that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was arguing that we should impose a levy of approximately 2p in the £1 on energy bills, and that the effect would be that approximately £1 billion extra would be available for energy efficiency measures. In other words, she was making a spending pledge and she was providing the means, because she was saying that there would be a 2 per cent. levy on the total energy bill of £50 billion, and that that money would be available. What is my hon. Friend's opinion about that?

Mr. Butler: I think I am right in saying that it was not the hon. Member for Deptford who suggested that, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure he said that.

Mr. Heald: She meant it.

Mr. Butler: I note the apology that is being offered across the Floor by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to the hon. Member for Deptford, and I note that she accepts it. Perhaps, therefore, I may pass on.
I wish emphatically to reject what I believe is a simplistic, and indeed insulting, contention—that it is necessary not only to support the idea of energy conservation in principle, but to support the wording of the Bill, in order to prove that Members care about the environment and energy efficiency. I reject that. It is nonsense.
I welcome enormously enthusiastically the title of the Bill. I congratulate the people who drafted the title of the Bill: Energy Conservation Bill, very effective. I regret that thereafter they handed over to others the responsibility for drafting the wording of the Bill, and it was not done nearly as effectively.
I think it is sufficient to mention one more defect in the Bill. If it means anything, it places a statutory duty on a local authority to do audits. It follows that, if I wish to find out how to save myself from heating the wind as it goes through my house and to stop those draughts, I would be entitled to go to the court and seek judicial review to force the local authority to do an individual audit on my house, at public expense, to discover how I might save on my fuel bills.
I cannot believe, in spite of his known generosity with public money, that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seriously intended that to be the case, for my house or for his.

Mr. Beith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is hoping to obtain legal aid to obtain that injunction, because his lawyers will have great difficulty in basing such an injunction on the content of the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It would not be an injunction—it would be certiorari mandamus, but that is perhaps a legalistic point. I can also assure him that, if he examines the Register of Members' Interests, he will see that I am probably eligible for legal aid in any event.
I return to the main defect of the Bill—it does not insulate a single house. I repeat my welcome for the idea behind the Bill. The title is good; the contents are not. After the debate, let us continue the discussion that I and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have had in seeking a solution to one of the most serious problems that confront us—the apparently rampant and uncontrolled use of finite energy resources.
The problem must be tackled. My hope, which I believe will be shared by all Conservative Members—and, I suspect, Opposition Members—is that we may be able to find a common way forward on that, and before too long, because I think that we can also agree that we do not have very long.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye at this time of the night, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been an energy-efficient debate, because we have had a little heat from the Opposition Benches but very little light on what the Opposition's policies are. We have learnt that the Liberal Democrats' policy is not now to impose VAT on fuel, although they were in favour of it until the Government introduced it.

Mr. Beith: No, we were not.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the paper that they produced in 1993—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will certainly give way.

Mr. Taylor: I have not denied that we canvassed the idea in a policy document in the early 1990s. But we rejected it for good reasons, and our manifesto specifically opposed the idea. The Conservative manifesto was rather more energy-efficient than ours, because it did not mention the idea at al—but the Government then introduced the tax.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Liberal paper entitled "Taxing Pollution, Not People", which was produced in September 1993, showed that the party supported a tax on energy sources, and claimed that the measure would raise

more than £5 billion by the year 2000. The hon. Gentleman still denies that there would be a tax on energy, even if it is not specifically VAT.

Mr. Taylor: I have no intention of misleading anyone on this issue. We have supported a carbon tax, but that is not the same as VAT on fuel, which falls directly on the consumer and does nothing to discourage inefficiency among generators. We argued for a carbon tax on that principle, and for those who were worried about its effect on the competitiveness of British industry, we said that the tax should be Europewide. That idea is still being canvassed.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: We have not learnt from that exchange whether the Liberal Democrats are still in favour of a carbon tax. I gather from Liberal Democrat nods that the party is in favour of a carbon tax on top of the VAT on fuel that we have introduced.

Mr. Taylor: I am happy to make the matter clear. I think that I have made it clear that we are against VAT on fuel. We have argued for a common European carbon tax and have said that VAT should be cut to the European minimum. I appreciate that we cannot get rid of it altogether, but we should cut it to 5 per cent. We do not suggest a carbon tax on top of existing and planned VAT.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My understanding is that the 1976 sixth directive on VAT would not allow us to reduce VAT to the level that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We would have to maintain it at 8 per cent. I am still not clear whether the hon. Gentleman would seek dispensation from Brussels to that effect, or whether he would wish to introduce carbon tax on top of the proposed rise in VAT to 17.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman nods, but I am still not sure of his position.

Mr. Taylor: I was not nodding, I was shaking my head. I think that it would be possible for Britain to reduce the rate to 5 per cent., and that is what we plan to do.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that clarification.
We got a little more light from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis)—or as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) called him, the hon. Member for Wales—who said that he favoured a 2 per cent. levy on our total energy bill of £50 billion. That would realise £1 billion a year.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend on Liberal Democrat policy.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I doubt it.

Mr. Butler: I accept that no one could do that satisfactorily, but I shall try.
It is a red herring to speak about 5, 8 or 15 per cent. VAT plus a carbon tax. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said at the Liberal Democrat conference, we must not deviate from paying the real cost for our energy, although at times it might be comfortable to do so. The hon. Gentleman said more than that: I am not seeking to give selective quotes.
It matters not to the consumer whether he pays VAT or a carbon tax. What is important to him is the cost. The Liberal Democrats were in favour of upping the cost, but


we have done that, so they are no longer in favour of it. I hope that, in those few seconds, I have elucidated the Liberal Democrats' "jelly-may-stick-to-the wall" policy.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: There we have it. The Liberal Democrats should retain my hon. Friend and use his legal skills to write their next election manifesto. Perhaps they would then have a clearer policy, which we would be able to understand.

Mr. Heald: If my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North-East (Mr. Butler) wrote the Liberal party manifesto, people would know what it stood for, and Liberal Democrat Members would not be able to jink and jive from one election to the next. Far from the Liberals being committed to a carbon tax, if they can persuade their European partners to have it, they have made it clear that, if Europe will not do it, they will
nevertheless press forward, for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel.
That shows that, if they cannot do what they want with the consent of Europe, they will do what we did.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that clarification.
A little light was thrown on Labour's policy, because we heard that the Opposition will impose a consumer tax on electricity and gas bills. However, it was not clear from what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said whether they were in favour of VAT on fuel and a carbon tax as well.

Ms Ruddock: That can only be because the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the debate. Our total condemnation of VAT on fuel has been made clear time and again in the House. There can be no doubt about that and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. We await an explanation from the Opposition's Treasury spokesman about where they will find the £3 billion shortfall when they abolish VAT on fuel—if the European Union allows them to do it.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. He is the former Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I look forward to his contribution, because he is extremely knowledgeable on these matters and made an important contribution to the Select Committee of which I had the privilege to be a member. I am privileged to speak following the thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), whom I congratulate on becoming Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment.
As I have said, we spend £50 billion a year on energy, a figure that was quoted in evidence to the Select Committee during its inquiry into energy efficiency in buildings by officials from the Department of the Environment. They estimated that we could save 20 per cent. of that amount, which is about £10 billion. That is a massive sum, and, in economic, environmental and social terms, we should make every effort to achieve maximum energy efficiency. The Government have an excellent record on encouraging industry, governmental and non-governmental agencies and individuals to achieve efficiency targets.
As the Minister has made clear, in December 1993 the Government ratified the climate change convention that emerged from the Rio conference. That convention

committed this country to stabilising CO2 output to 1990 levels by the year 2000, thus helping to reduce global warming and the greenhouse effect.
There are also the social consequences of energy efficiency. Most of our housing stock is occupied by the poorest in society. During the Select Committee visit to Glasgow housing department, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, we saw examples of houses that had been excellently refurbished at £4,000 each. The energy bills of those tenants were cut dramatically.
During that same visit, we saw tower blocks of flats where, during the worst winter days, the temperature inside was lower than that outside, even though the tenants spent £20 a week on energy. That is why I welcome the Chancellor's announcement in his November Budget that the Government would double the resources available to the home energy efficiency scheme, from £35 million to £70 million, thus enabling help to he provided to about 500,000 homes this year. A further 4 million homes are eligible for the scheme. That is a worthwhile scheme to help the poorest in society.
The Government have a positive programme to encourage energy efficiency, especially via the Energy Efficiency Office. As we have heard, much of its work has been delegated to the energy savings trust. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister said that the
Energy Efficiency Office budget has been increased to more than £100 million for 1994–95".—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 302.]
That is a large figure; it is 17 times the level of expenditure when the Opposition were last in power in 1979, so no one should lecture us that the Government are anything but highly committed to energy efficiency measures.

Mr. David Rendel: Is not the argument that much stronger, therefore: that, if such a huge amount of money is to be spent, we should know where it should best be spent? That is exactly the point of the original Energy Conservation Bill.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Although I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, I do not agree with the way in which his party would achieve it; I shall come to that later. I totally agree that we need to know how that huge sum of money should be spent, and that it should be spent effectively.
The Select Committee inquiry into energy efficiency in buildings received evidence from the Energy Saving Trust, for which the Government have set a target of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon saving by the year 2000. It stated that, to achieve that target, which is a vital part of the climate change convention to which Government committed us, it required a budget of some £1.5 billion over the next six years or so.
The evidence continued:
if this investment is spread across all consumers, the maximum average impact on bills is at most only 1.5 per cent. decreasing rapidly thereafter as the savings take effect.
It also stated that other benefits include
the creation of about 40,000 more jobs in the energy efficiency field and an improvement in the balance of trade of about £300 million a year by the year 2000.".
It is of great importance that we get the funding correct for the Energy Saving Trust. As has been mentioned this evening, funding is to come largely from the electricity and gas industries. Funding will be raised from the


electricity industry via the K factor recently revised by the director general of Offer and from the gas industry via the E factor.
We took evidence from Clare Spottiswoode, the director general of Ofgas, who took a fairly narrow legal interpretation of the Gas Act 1986 and reached different conclusion from her predecessor, Sir James McKinnon, that she was not allowed to spend via the E factor anything more than a minimum amount on energy efficiency measures. So the Government have a problem as to how the shortfall to the Energy Saving Trust is to be achieved.
I am sure that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will have something to say about that, and I look forward to his speech. However, if the director general of Ofgas is not prepared to alter her stance—it seems that there is an overwhelming case for her doing so, because it is in the interest of all gas consumers and everyone else that she should—my hon. Friend should have discussions with the gas industry to encourage it to raise a sum similar to the one being raised by the electricity industry, so that there is complete fairness in competition between the two energy industries.
The Government have a positive energy efficiency programme in their own estate. As we have heard this evening, they have set themselves a target of a 15 per cent. reduction in energy use over the next five years, so that consumption should be 80 per cent. of the 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Some Government Departments have made great strides in that direction. I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that the new Department of the Environment office has been designed primarily with energy efficiency in mind, but other Departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, have not made such progress. I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that this evening, and will use his influence to ensure that the Government set the highest possible example to industry and private consumers.
In the corporate sector, great efforts are being made to encourage reductions in energy consumption. The Government's corporate commitment campaign involved 1,500 major firms making a corporate commitment to improve energy efficiency. When it gets going, that campaign will have a massive effect.
The energy management assistance scheme gives small firms free advice on how to promote energy efficiency schemes and grants towards implementing them are available. In the corporate sector—one of the largest sectors of energy consumption—real progress is about to be made, and we look forward to seeing demonstrable results.
On the domestic side, the Government are putting even more effort into energy efficiency. I have already mentioned the home energy efficiency scheme—a worthwhile scheme for the worst-insulated houses in Britain.
I was invited by the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust to witness the implementation of such a scheme by a unemployed person in my constituency. The difference produced for a very small expenditure was phenomenal. Just a little draught-proofing around the windows and doors, proper insulation in the roof and a proper timer

switch and thermostat on the hot water cylinder, reduced fuel bills by about a quarter. That is very worth while for anyone on a low income, and I thoroughly recommend the scheme.
The Energy Saving Trust is tasked with producing other energy-saving measures promoted by the utilities, which have suggested some excellent schemes already, although their progress is being hampered by lack of funding. One issue that they are pushing is contract energy saving management—a worthwhile and cost-efficient way for the utilities to promote energy efficiency, as they can employ specialists to carry out their entire energy efficiency promotional programme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, great progress is being made in the United States. By offering the carrot of reduced electricity bills, electricity utilities were able to send out detailed questionnaires to each consumer in their area. They had a response of well over 70 per cent. They were then able to feed those responses into a computer, which produced a programme of the best energy efficiency measures that each consumer could take. That is just one shining example of the progress that we learned in the United States of the steps being taken to promote energy efficiency. The United States is a long way ahead of Britain in energy efficiency.
I said that there were possible savings of up to £10 billion on energy-saving measures. We saw measures in the United States that have already saved millions of dollars, so there are lessons to be learned from the United States. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to point to further positive steps that we are about to take.
We believe that energy efficiency is best carried out by individual education promoted by self-interest—the very point that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East was making. We believe that it should be achieved through voluntary effort rather than by costly and bureaucratic methods prescribed to local authorities. That is not the way forward; it would be very costly and intrusive into people's private affairs. I much prefer the idea that people should produce energy efficiency measures for themselves.
As I have already demonstrated with evidence from the Energy Saving Trust, the payback can be extremely short—sometimes as little as a year. Most energy-saving methods have a payback of only three years, so it is in everybody's self-interest that they should devote resources to producing energy-saving measures.
For that reason, I oppose the Energy Conservation Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am sorry that I have to do so, because I approve of the aims of energy conservation. I have shown that I applaud any aim to improve energy conservation, but not by prescription.
This is an important subject. We still have a long way to go, and I am sure that, under the Government's stewardship, we will be able to meet our Rio target. I look forward to positive steps being taken in that direction.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for setting aside one of the relatively few half-days at our disposal to discuss this subject, which has clearly aroused interest among a number of knowledgeable hon. Members who have taken


part in the debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to return to a subject to which we have devoted a number of Fridays, but without the success in getting it on the statute book that the Bill deserved. Give or take a phrase here and there, we have had a good and constructive debate, in which a great deal of knowledge about, and interest in, energy conservation matters has been shown.
The Minister has been involved in the Bill's progress—he has not assisted it very much but I could not say that he has blocked it very much either. He described the Government's policies at some length but failed to explain how they could deliver the reduction in carbon emissions to which we are committed. He made a fair statement of what the Government have done so far and quoted a number of commendable efforts, but the gap remains.
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for his strong support for my Bill. Indeed, it is based on one that he introduced in a previous Session, although it is not the same in all respects.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) decided to attack the intellectual high ground. That amused us at first, but then he did himself more than justice because he made a good speech and gave a useful review of the Environment Select Committee. Indeed, he underlined a point that I have just made, because the Committee was not satisfied with the Government's proposals for achieving the target. The whole burden of the report shows that there is not enough in place to achieve it.
Energy use has continued to rise—by 6.2 per cent. in the first half of 1993—and the energy ratio is rising. The cause is not just the recovery from recession, but the underlying problem. Even the worthy measures in the Government's programme are not sufficient to deal with that.
I welcome the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) to her post on the Labour Front Bench. As I am sure she does, I wish it were a shadow Cabinet post—both for her own sake and for the sake of the importance that should be attached to energy conservation. She followed the example set by her predecessor, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who was also a committed supporter of my Bill. He encouraged Labour Members to turn up and support it on the days that it was before the House.
I would have welcomed a Labour Back-Bench endorsement as well. However, I do not think that the Labour party is yet facing up to the energy pricing carbon tax issue, which eventually it will have to do. I hope that, during the hon. Lady's tenure of office, she will bring her party face-to-face with some of the difficult issues.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) reminded us that he had come out—he told us that he was a member of Friends of the Earth. He made a constructive speech about energy conservation matters, although I disagreed with his conclusion about my Bill.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was confused initially about VAT and carbon energy tax. However, through a series of interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was able to help him. Indeed, it became a seminar on policy. There is nothing to be said for inaccurately representing the policies of other parties. I have to deal with enough things that are wrong with Government policy without inventing things that they

have not yet got wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could find measures that we are in favour of with which to disagree rather than those that we do not favour.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Despite the previous exchanges, I am still not entirely clear what the Liberal Democrat policy is. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stick to the present level of 8 per cent. VAT plus a carbon energy tax or does he want a dispensation from Europe to get rid of VAT on fuel?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman goes straight to the special needs class. I will have to repeat the lesson given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. The system in Europe to which the nation is committed does not allow us to reduce the VAT on fuel below 5 per cent., but we are committed to reducing it to that figure. The carbon energy tax would be on top of that. However, if the Government agree to a European carbon energy tax, it would be on top of 17.5 per cent. VAT. That would be unacceptable, but we think that they will be landed with something like that.

Mr. Butler: I want to clarify this issue. The Liberal Democrats would maintain—because they would have to, not because they wished to–5 per cent. VAT with carbon energy tax on top of that. How much would that additional tax be?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that has the power to negotiate that. There is no known rate for carbon energy tax. That has still to be negotiated between the member countries of the European Union, but it would have to be at a rate that would achieve the effect that we have been discussing. A 17.5 per cent. VAT rate with the carbon energy tax on top of that would be unacceptable. We have made it clear that that would not be a sensible way to approach the matter.
Even the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, despite his partisan opening remarks, made a number of constructive points and described practical measures that would help people on low incomes. The assessment of appropriate energy saving measures called for in the Bill would identify where they would be most effective. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in many types of housing much could be achieved through measures that are less expensive than, for example, elaborate double glazing—such as simple draught-proofing, alterations in the pattern of energy use that would not leave people cold but would be a more efficient use of energy, and simple—not hi-tech—changes in the equipment used.
The Bill's purpose was to put an end to the amazing lack of information on energy efficiency in the housing stock by requiring local authorities to evaluate the energy efficiency of housing in their areas, both in the public and the private sectors. That information would enable the drawing up of local energy conservation plans in consultation with local interests. It is a feature of Government policy that all sorts of local groups—environmental, consumer, trade organisations and residents—should be involved in developing energy conservation. On the basis of the information provided, they could make real progress in developing energy conservation plans.

Mr. Barry Field: How will the right hon. Gentleman achieve that? Will there be a phalanx of thermal thought


police from the local authority knocking on doors? Most of my constituents already think that the local authority is a bit of a busybody—a big brother—without having a great army of thermal thought police banging on their doors.

Mr. Beith: Only the hon. Gentleman could even envisage, let alone appoint, thermal thought police. There will be no such thing. Local authorities already have to carry out housing condition surveys, and therefore have the mechanisms to do that. We want to incorporate into that process a specific commitment to evaluating the energy efficiency improvements that could be achieved. That requires nothing like the draconian measure envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.
Such an evaluation would fit well with the existing duties of local authorities, which the Department of the Environment requires them to fulfil. In the private sector, section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 specifies that at least once in each year local authorities should consider the housing conditions in their districts. Those surveys are usually carried out by environmental health officers and they could easily embrace the energy efficient element. That view is shared by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, which has campaigned in support of my Bill. It would not require a physical survey of each home because much of the information is already known and the gaps could be filled using, in some cases, a sample of the properties. No household would be forced to take part against its wishes.
That was such a reasonable set of proposals that it achieved all-party backing. Only five amendments were tabled in Committee. At the end of the day, we had the same tactics as were employed in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, except that the Secretary of State did at least in this case table 50 of the amendments in his own name. Only the remaining 150 had to be fanned out to hon. Members who began the day a little unsure of the purpose and significance of the amendments. Every single amendment drafted to the Bill was tabled by parliamentary draftsmen instructed by the Government—every single one.
How strangely the Government's attitude to the Bill has changed during its passage through the House. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who has gone off to foreign pastures, said:
It is a constructive Bill, on which there is clearly considerable consensus, demonstrated by the fact that the supporters are drawn from both sides of the House. That consensus has been echoed in the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.]
He went on to explain the Government's specific concerns about the Bill, but the burden of what he said was that those concerns could and should be met in Committee.

Mr. Rendel: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Bill met with considerable support not only from both sides of the House but from a number of local authorities—including, I am proud to say, my own in Newbury, which, with my full support, passed a motion in favour of the Bill and asked me to promote it in the House? Of course, it is not only Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities that supported the Bill; a number of

Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities and some with no overall control also did so. That should be mentioned.

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is right. A large number of local authorities supported the Bill and were totally unimpressed by the Government's new role as the saviour of local authorities from unnecessary burdens and requirements. Any claim to such a role is totally unconvincing. Local authorities were strong in their support for the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I return to a point made earlier in the debate and not yet answered. If local authorities are so much in support of doing this and they can do it already, why do they not simply do it?

Mr. Beith: I am making my speech slightly out of order, but the hon. Gentleman must know that, within the constraints under which local authorities now operate, permissive responsibilities take second place to statutory requirements. They are influenced by the way in which the standard spending assessment system works and by a number of other aspects of central control.
In addition, local authorities are increasingly compared unfavourably with each other by the Government if they go beyond what the Government consider to be the minimum range of duties. They are open to criticism from Ministers if they do so. Therefore, to invite local authorities to go out on a limb is to do almost the opposite of what Ministers are doing. I shall return to that point, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. It will feature again later in my speech.
I simply wanted to develop the history of the Government's attitude to the Bill. It was around the time of Second Reading that I had a discussion with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made it pretty clear that the Government merely wanted the Bill to be a permissive one. It could go on the statute book as long as it did not impose a requirement on local authorities.
My view was, and remains, that there would be little point in that, because local authorities have the power to carry out those functions at the moment. The problem is that it is merely a permissive power, but not one which a lot of local authorities are reluctant to carry out, although some are. Many cannot put it as high on their list of priorities as their compulsory statutory duties. That is why I regarded that as important.
Nevertheless, one could envisage the Government tabling an amendment to achieve that particular change and perhaps carrying it so that the Bill became acceptable. Therefore, we were talking about a Bill with which the Government were in broad sympathy but with which they had a specific disagreement. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, said that the Bill would have had his support if it had been permissive. A number of hon. Members who are now Ministers made similar or more fulsome statements at the time.
In Committee we had the privilege of the assistance of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He said:
We have considerable sympathy for what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. However, we have reservations about the practicalities and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government inevitably have the problem of persuading the Treasury about what does or does not need to be done in certain areas. That is why the amendments were put down late and why you, Mr. Hughes"—


the Chairman—
were unable to accept them, which is correct according to procedure.
Obviously, the Minister had been fighting valiantly for the Bill in the corridors of power and had been done down by Treasury Ministers, but his sympathy was clearly there.
A little later, the Minister said:
My response, in part, is that because local authorities are already doing many of these things, and the Government propose that there should be permissive legislation to encourage them—we are at one in recognising that something needs to be done—we do not believe that it should be incumbent on local authorities to spend money in that way if they, as elected authorities, choose not to do so.
The only argument between us was whether local authorities should be put under the obligation. Therefore, this can hardly be a Bill that the Government deplore.
On Report, the hon. Member for Banbury had become a little more warlike in his approach to these matters, and his interventions, although rarely addressed to the principle of the Bill but rather to some of his 200 amendments, did not show the same sympathy. For us then to find, as we did on the Order Paper today, a motion deploring the Bill in terms so strident that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) felt it necessary to go hotfoot into the Table Office and table an amendment to remove the word "deplores" and replace it with the word "notes", showed a significant change in the Government's position.
The Government have got themselves worked up. Because the Bill keeps coming back and the issue keeps being forced back on to the agenda, they have become more and more strident in their denunciation of it, even though, from the beginning they recognised that the work should be done. That is the common ground. The work of carrying out an assessment of the way in which energy efficiency can be improved in housing should be done, the Government say, by local authorities, but they should not be obliged to do it. That is a narrow division indeed.
Some Conservative Members who assisted me in support of the Bill were fulsome in what they felt could be achieved by the Bill's approach. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said:
We should not simply dismiss the Bill by saying that we must not burden councils with the measure.
The hon. Member for Eltham said that he was not sure that the Minister's proposal for modification of the Bill in future was convincing. He went on to say:
The results of the Bill … will go way beyond people's expectations. The Bill will promote well-being. There will be an increase in welfare and in disposable income which can be spent on other goods such as fuel.
The Bill could have the plain English title, the Money Saving and Comfort Increasing Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 7-28.]
That is the Bill that is deplored.
The Minister responsible for energy efficiency has long been a supporter of the Bill's principles. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) declared support for the Bill. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People introduced a Bill on those lines himself some time ago. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) who has been scurrying

about the Chamber today handing out sheets of paper to assist Conservative Members in their speeches is, I suspect, himself a supporter of the Bill.

Mr. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harlow, but not to anyone else.
The views of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) were quoted earlier, and she was a persuasive advocate. She made it clear that the Bill deserves support. Other hon. Members who have become Ministers were among those who supported the Bill which is now deplored.

Mr. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: This is the hon. Gentleman's last chance.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me yet another last chance. I just want to put on the record the fact that none of the notes passed out by the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was the slightest bit useful.

Mr. Beith: I am a charitable man, so I prefer to attribute that to the known sympathy of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the objects of the Bill rather than to any incompetence on his part.
Much has been said this afternoon about the cost of the Bill's proposals. We have often referred to the Government's own estimates, which we regard as very much on the high side because they use the fullest technique of assessment, which was tested in two authorities. That has produced figures from £11 million to £23 million. I remind the Government that those are relatively small figures compared with the amounts of waste that can easily be found. For example, it was no less a person than the hon. Member for Banbury who told my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that office accommodation left vacant by the Government is costing us £51.9 million a year, plus a further £4.9 million in SW1 alone. Those sums fall well within the Government's known waste margin in other sectors.
Perhaps the most important point about cost, which I want to remind hon. Members about before we vote on the matter, is that money can easily be wasted or misdirected in energy efficiency. Gullibility in relation to advertising, the promotion of the wrong products, or just getting the wrong idea about how to save energy, can do a considerable amount of harm. Our resources as a nation are not infinite. We want to use them as wisely as we can, to enable people to keep warm and to reduce the pollution associated with energy misuse. We can best do that if we have information about how the resources can be well directed. We can enable people to keep warm at less cost with less pollution if we know where the funds can best be used.
One of the weaknesses of the Government's position is that they concentrate their efforts entirely on the local authority sector. That does not mean all of the measures that they referred to earlier, but the largest amount of effort that they can quote in their defence is made within the local authority sector. It is their policy that that sector should be reduced as a total of the whole, and it has been throughout my time in the House of Commons, through people purchasing their own council houses and through building in other sectors.
Some 57 per cent. of householders over pension age are owner-occupiers. Many of them, although they possess a house, perhaps still mortgaged, do not possess substantial resources with which to make it more energy-efficient. The house may be their only asset, and their income may be very low indeed. Within the private sector are important areas for energy efficiency work, which we need to identify. It is no use simply using the local authority sector, as the Government can, using existing local authority procedures. They must recognise the value of the Bill in looking at the whole of our housing stock.
I am bound to ask where the real objections to the Bill lie. I cannot take seriously the Government's pretended role as the saviour of local authority independence, because it sits so ill with almost anything else that they have done throughout their term of office. I find it difficult to take seriously their arguments about the cost of the measure itself—the cost of carrying out the assessments—because, as I have argued, it is so relatively small.
I can think of only two other explanations. One is that they are frightened of the need for energy efficiency work, which the assessments will demonstrate; the other is that they are panicked by the possibility of discovering that considerable capital expenditure might be desirable and might yield marvellous results. The mere fact that it could demonstrate a need for that expenditure might well be what is frightening the Treasury to death.
The only other explanation that I can think of was the one adduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—that the Government are frightened by the possibility that pressure for energy efficiency will damage the prospects for the flotation of PowerGen and National Power. I believe that the Government once denied that, but it would be quite nice to hear them do so firmly and categorically once more. Indeed, the most effective way to do that would be to make it much clearer that energy efficiency and energy conservation should be an objective of electricity generating and distribution companies. That has never been clear enough in statute. It should be a great deal clearer.
I think that the Government never resorted to out-and-out opposition to the Bill because their objections were so misdirected and inadequate. One of the only hon. Members whom I have ever heard produce the words, "I oppose the Bill" was the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who did so earlier. He is a very lonely figure, because most hon. Members, on both sides of the House, either support it or say that they support it in general terms but think that it should not be mandatory. The Government as such have never deployed outright opposition to the Bill. They chose instead to use the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill tactics, and to deluge the amendment paper with amendments that were not tabled in Committee.
The ultimate absurdity of the Government's tactics was demonstrated when the Bill returned before the House for a second bite, on Report. I said that I had been so persuaded by the long speech of the Minister some months previously that I was disposed to accept the amendment that he had moved at that time. So what happened then? The Government opposed the amendment

that they themselves had moved, putting Tellers both for and against the motion to agree the amendment. The absurdity of their tactics was plain for all to see.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I am concluding my remarks.
The Bill is clearly widely supported both inside and outside the House. It was clearly a modest and sensible way of pointing the way to the efficient use of resources to help people to keep warm and to cut pollution. The objections to it were so flimsy that the Government had to resort to those tactics. I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and sincerely hope that his record of support for the measure in the past will lead him, even if he does not concede to us tonight, to set about his Department and move it in the direction of the proposals contained in the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in opening the debate for the Liberal Democrats, and to the numerous references to what I might say in response, I must say that mine must be the most trailed winding-up speech ever heard in the House. I may not be the Lion King, but at least my speech was trailed as much it was.
There is no doubt that we have had a very useful debate. I want to pick up on the last remarks that were made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Even if there was disagreement about the Bill, there was a need to drive forward some of the principles in it. It seemed to me that there was a lot of common ground between hon. Members on both sides of the House about what was desirable, even if there was some controversy about the provisions of the Bill.
As someone who has tried to introduce a private Member's Bill, the Hedgerows Bill, which was blocked on that occasion by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I understand how possessive one gets about one's own private Member's Bill. My sense of possessiveness about the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, slightly diminished by the fact that I was not its chief sponsor, has not in any way undermined my commitment to energy conservation, because it is extremely important.
If we are agreed on the ends, we must debate properly in the House—not just across the Floor of the Chamber, but in the important arena of the Select Committees and so on—how we are to will the means to those ends. It seems self-evident that energy efficiency is desirable: for the environment, because of global warming, and none of us wants to see people waste money on energy when they could be spending it on other things; and for the competitiveness of industry, because if we are using less energy, we can compete more ably in world markets. It is highly desirable from the point of view of the fuel poor, which was rightly referred to by many of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.
So if this is not a dispute about the desirability of the Bill, for some hon. Members, it certainly is a dispute about methodology. I shall return to the aims of the Bill in a moment. Oscar Wilde was right when he said:
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.
That applies to the contents of the Bill and its aims.
There can, of course, be considerable debate about the level of resources devoted to energy conservation. I have no doubt that Opposition Members will have different views on that from Conservative Members. That is perfectly proper, but it does not seem to be at all relevant to whether one considers the Bill desirable.
I shall remind the House of what the Bill said, and of the key point in it, which was to provide for a duty on a local authority to carry out an investigation of residential accommodation
with a view to deciding what measures are, in its opinion, desirable and practicable, to achieve greater energy conservation".
It would also have a duty to prepare and update plans setting out arrangements to achieve that. That recognises the importance of energy conservation in buildings and the effect of the use of energy on the environment, because 50 per cent. of global warming gases come from the use of buildings, directly or indirectly. The efficiency with which energy is used in those buildings—or used to provide the fuels that operate equipment in them—is therefore critical.
Let me deal next with housing. Energy conservation is extremely important to council housing, for instance. Hon. Members have referred to the level of income of those living in council houses, which form a large percentage of our stock, although not the majority. The Government have taken steps to ensure that we deliver, because delivery is what this is about: it is about not intent but achievement—achieving improvements in council housing stock. Our principal tool is the housing improvement policy strategy. Let me explain what we expect local authorities to do.
We are looking for evidence of a properly formulated energy efficiency policy. Key ingredients are clear objectives for aspects such as affordable warmth, management and maintenance costs and carbon dioxide reductions. We should also consider longer-term targets to measure achievements and energy rating for council stock as the basis for establishing the policy. Guidance on energy efficiency in council housing provides practical advice on how to develop a sound and fully integrated energy efficiency policy.
We have found that the vast majority of local authorities are responding. I do not say that they are all doing so, but far more are responding than the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) suggested when she rightly praised her local authority in Lewisham, or other hon. Members suggested when praising their own authorities. We know from their housing investment programme submissions, and from the national home energy rating—NHER—that huge numbers of authorities are currently surveying their stock or have completed their surveys.
Let me cite some of those authorities. I do not suppose that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be surprised if I start with my own authority, as I have the privilege of representing part of Dacorum. Its plans include ensuring

that all housing stock has an average NHER rating greater than 6 by 1998, reducing average carbon dioxide emissions for its stock by at least 1 tonne per year per dwelling by 1998, reducing condensation complaints by 25 per cent. per year and training all front-line housing staff to offer advice on the efficient use of heating systems by mid-1995. That is very commendable.
Naturally, I asked for the targets of authorities in the Northumberland area, because I knew that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would be interested. Alnwick has conducted an energy survey of all its rented stock; Berwick-upon-Tweed planned to rate all its housing stock by August 1994—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether it completed the process on time. Energy conservation, including the use of renewables, is one of the main aims of Blyth Valley's urban plan. Tynedale has undertaken a stock profile for each home in council ownership, and aims to bring all housing stock up to an NHER of 7 in six years. Wansbeck has, to date, rated 35 per cent. of its stock, using the Government's standard assessment programme; and even the least active authority, Castle Morpeth, has commissioned an energy audit of its stock.

Mr. Beith: The point that the Minister is making demonstrates that local authorities are carrying out the work that he commends without being bureaucratic or wasting money. It also underlines the fact that the proportion of total housing stock that their stock represents is smaller than it used to be: I am sure that that is true in Dacorum, and in many other authorities.

Mr. Jones: I think my point demonstrates that all this is happening without legislation. I shall, however, deal with the private sector, because it is important.
The housing association sector also contains a high concentration of people with limited means. The Housing Corporation has laid down a minimum standard assessment procedure rating for all new developments, which will mean that housing association developments will be extremely energy-efficient. I know of few housing associations with old properties—for instance, the big charities such as Peabody, Sutton and Guinness—that are not taking a good look at their older stock with a view to taking appropriate steps.
Some local authorities are using their involvement with housing associations through the HIP process to ensure that they secure the maximum energy efficiency out of new developments by running competitions. I praise, for example, the London borough of Richmond—controlled by the party of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—which has sponsored a competition to achieve the maximum energy efficiency in developing a new site. The authority kindly invited me to launch the competition, and I happily said that I would, because I feel that all local authorities should emulate that approach.
In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being too generous to the Liberal party, let me also single out Stafford borough council, which is controlled by my party—thanks to two councillors who left the Liberal party because they were so disgusted with its policies. It has done exactly the same with a large new site. I am pleased to say that a very energy-efficient development will be carried out on that site by the William Sutton trust—as it now is—whose headquarters are in my constituency. A great deal is happening on


the housing association front; that, I think, is due to the initiative of not just individual associations but the Housing Corporation—at, I might add, the Government's suggestion.
I believe that the private sector is the most difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) pointed out, we cannot simply send in the thermal thought police; but there are some things that can be done. For instance, the home energy efficiency scheme has been very valuable to those on low incomes; increasing the number of building regulations has been useful to new building of private houses. Educating residents, whether they are council tenants or private owners, is also useful—hence the rationale for the Wasting Energy Costs the Earth campaign, which has received a substantial amount of taxpayers' money. There is also the renewal strategy pursued by local authorities for individual areas. It seems to make sense to combine energy-efficiency measures with other measures where stock is being improved.
The real point at which all that bites, however, is the point of sale. That is what the Select Committee said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight referred to it earlier. If lenders adopted a different attitude, encouraging purchasers to think more about the energy efficiency of the properties that they were choosing between, a great deal would be achieved. I am pleased to tell the House that the Nationwide building society already incorporates SAP ratings in its surveys, and the Halifax is doing so on a pilot basis. We are holding discussions with lenders in an attempt to build on that: it is critically important for them to take a positive view.
That also makes sense from the lenders' point of view. It is crazy to be prepared to lend two and a half times someone's income on the basis of valuation of a house without taking into account the purchaser's ability to afford repayments on the mortgage. If the purchaser's energy costs are low, however, his ability to meet those repayments will be greater.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister has just given us an impressive list of housing sectors and the programmes by which they might be brought up to a proper standard of energy efficiency. Will he give us the global view? What percentage of Britain's housing stock meets appropriate standards now, and what is his prediction for the next five or 10 years? When will our housing meet appropriate modern energy-efficiency standards?

Mr. Jones: The answer to the first question is that I do not know. The answer to the second is "more"—but the rate will depend on what happens in terms of individual decisions. That is why the role of education campaigns is so important.

Mr. Dafis: rose—

Mr. Jones: I shall return to the hon. Member for Truro first: if I give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) at this point, I shall not be able to deal with his points later, which I think he would want me to do.
The hon. Member for Truro, said that the best authorities would do what they were doing in any event—but only the best. I must tell him that such is

the mechanism of the HIP allocations that local authorities have a powerful incentive to present proper strategies, in order to be rewarded with additional resources to develop housing in their areas. That is different from the position in 1993, when I sponsored the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is one of the key ingredients that has led me to the conclusion that we can do better than the Bill. That is the argument that we support.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am glad that the Minister is addressing a change of mind and that he acknowledges that. I do not want to prevent him from saying more about that. However, surely his point about the HIP allocation process shows that it is a form of compulsion, which he said is his reason for objecting to the statutory requirement.

Mr. Jones: I did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, let me remind him that I said that it was unnecessary because local authorities were well down the road suggested by the Bill and I want to get them further down that road. I regard it not as compulsion but as a powerful incentive, and incentivising is what Conservatives are all about.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Truro for quoting the Select Committee at such length. I am not so far away from my membership of that Committee that I do not appreciate the work that it did and all the reports that it has produced on this and other subjects. It is close to my mind and I am constantly cross-referring to what was said. There is a great deal of sense in its recommendations, and the report on energy conservation pulled together a great deal of information and made many recommendations for which we are grateful. That is why the Government used a positive tone in responding to the report.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the key issue of the financing of the Energy Saving Trust. That issue is more key to the debate than is the Bill. We are awaiting a response from the Director General of Gas Supply to the various proposals from the Energy Saving Trust.
You may feel, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Ofgas should be quick about it. There is a need for a fairly early response so that the trust knows where it stands. I have had conversations with the Gas Consumers Council and Clare Spottiswoode, and I have stressed the importance of dealing with that so that we can think about the medium and long term in the light of justified knowledge about her position. As we understand it, she is currently considering the schemes on their merits and we do not know what answers she will come up with.
To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, he said that British Gas should come up with the money irrespective of what is said by the Director General of Gas Supply. I am afraid that that is not possible. The guidance and what is allowed is much more fundamental than whether the response is positive or negative.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to targets and the need to have targets beyond the year 2000. The climate change convention provides for the commitments to be reviewed in spring


next year and before 1998. That will be built in automatically, and I agree that it is important to think about that in the medium and long term.
I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about a levy of 2 to 3 per cent. on electricity bills. I should welcome it if he were to put that to the Director General of Offer to see what his reaction is. The hon. Gentleman said also that it is up to the Government to introduce their own proposals or to accept the Bill. I hope that what I have said so far demonstrates that, in addition to what has already been announced or what was referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech, there is clear evidence that our strategy through the HIP process is working.

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Mr. Jones: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been present for much of the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) deserves a response to his thoughtful and interesting speech.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on his appointment. I have a high opinion of him and I wish him well. He referred to the labelling of domestic appliances. From January 1995, fridges and freezers will bear energy labels. The Commission is developing directives to cover washing machines, tumble driers, washer-driers and dishwashers. That is important because they use 60 per cent. of the electricity used in homes and produce 6 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. All new models are about 15 to 25 per cent. more efficient than the old models.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, it is important that the Government demonstrate their commitment through their own estate. He was kind enough to refer to my Department's plans for our new headquarters. He mentioned the combined heat and power ingredient and so on. The Government have set a demanding target of a 15 per cent. reduction in the years leading to March 1996. My hon. Friend said that I should be tough with other Departments. We apply as much pressure as we can to other Departments, but it is also up to the Chairmen and Chairwomen of Select Committees to scrutinise their own Departments. We would welcome some assistance.
The hon. Member for Deptford made a number of points, one of which was about combined heat and power. In 1990, the target was set of 4,000 MW capacity by the year 2000 and it was revised in 1993 up to 5,000 MW. The Labour party never set a target for CHP. We are extremely pro-CHP and there are now over 1,000 sites in operation with 2,900 MW of capacity, which is 5 per cent. of all United Kingdom generation.
The hon. Lady referred also to the VAT issue and she could not understand that environmentalists might have a different view from her. In its Budget briefing on that subject, Friends of the Earth said:
Increasing the price of domestic fuel is an important signal to householders that energy use should be cut. Cutting energy use is vital to reduce Britain's production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and other energy related pollutants. Friends of the Earth therefore welcomes the Chancellor's commitment to increasing domestic fuel and power prices over the next two years through the gradual imposition of VAT.

The hon. Lady said that energy efficiency investment has fallen by 28 per cent. I was baffled. I do not know where she found that statistic. I am not aware of any reliable measures of such investment, partly because that is difficult to collect and partly because it is difficult to define. It is estimated that, thanks to the new building regulations, homes will be over 25 per cent. more efficient, but the extra cost is negligible. Is that ineffective simply because there is a lack of investment? I think not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) made an excellent speech in which he referred to the need to use less and waste less. That is an important message for the general public and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. As my hon. Friend said, the Palace of Westminster is notoriously hot on occasions, but I can reassure him that it is on target for its 15 per cent. reduction by 1996.
We should not be deluded into thinking that energy efficiency is entirely the preserve of housing and buildings. We need greater energy efficiency in industry and that will come about as a result of all the schemes that the Government have promoted such as EMAS, ecoaudit, BS7750, best practice programmes or whatever. All that is important, as are alternative vehicle fuels. I have tried the gas-powered vehicle and was extremely impressed with its quietness and energy efficiency.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that, like him, we think that the HEES scheme is extremely important. It has received double the amount of the previous year and very soon we shall have the millionth beneficiary.
My conclusion from all those arguments is that, if one judges the Government by their achievements in housing and in everything else, they have an excellent record, so I commend the Government's amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 292.

Division No. 317]
[18.59 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainger, Nick
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Ms Janet
Callaghan, Jim


(Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Austin-Walker, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chidgey, David


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Church, Judith


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blunkett, David
Coffey, Ann


Boateng, Paul
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Keith
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbett, Robin






Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corston, Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cox, Tom
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cummings, John
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Denham, John
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
MacShane, Denis


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Maddock, Diana


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mahon, Alice


Dowd, Jim
Mandelson, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Enright, Derek
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Etherington, Bill
Martin, Michael J, (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAvoy, Thomas


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McFall, John


Fyfe, Maria
McKelvey, William


Galbraith, Sam
McLeish, Henry


Galloway, George
McMaster, Gordon


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofin)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Simpson, Alan





Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watson, Mike


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Andrew


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Mrs, Ann (Dewsbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Turner, Dennis
Tellere for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Wallace, James
Mr. Don Foster.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Carn, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Amess, David
curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Bates, Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Body, sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Faber, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butler, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Garnier, Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Gillan, Cheryl


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Churchill, Mr
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gorst, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Colvin, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Congdon, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Conway, Derek
Hague, William


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)







Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stephen, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard





Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trotter, Neville
Whittingdale, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Willetts, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wilshire, David


Walden, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Sidney Chapman and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Tim Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 174.

Division No. 318]
[19.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bendall, Vivian
Devlin, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dicks, Terry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Bovis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Cash, William
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Chapman, Sydney
French, Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Fry, Sir Peter






Gallie, Phil
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Monoro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sri Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary





Sumberg, David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sweeney, Walter
Walden, George


Sykes, John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Ward, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Waterson, Nigel


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tracey, Richard
Wolfsol, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Bowen Wells.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Harry
Galloway, George


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Godsiff, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Berry, Roger
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gunnell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hall, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Harvey, Nick


Callaghan, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cann, Jamie
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Jean
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dafis, Cynog
Keen, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Khabra Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert






Loyden, Eddie
Reid, Dr John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rendel, David


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


MacShane, Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Madden, Max
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Maddock, Diana
Rooker, Jeff


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruddock, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis



McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Speller, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


Murphy, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Olner, William
Wise, Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Wright, Dr Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Don Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in ihe Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it.

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

CLAUSE 4

CONVENER AND DEPUTE CONVENER

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, at end insert—
("Provided that no such other council may, without the consent of the Secretary of State, decide that their convener shall be known by the title of "Lord Provost".")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Mr. James Wallace: You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the amendment their Lordships provided that no council other those of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen may call its convener "lord provost", without the consent of the Secretary of State.
We certainly acknowledge the historic titles used in each of those important Scottish cities, but what sticks in the craw is the fact that, despite the Bill starting out with more than 150 provisions giving power to the Secretary of State, the Lords amendment would give him even more power to determine the affairs of local communities.
It is undisputed that the four cities that I mentioned have the traditional right of calling their senior civic person the lord provost—I am not sure whether there has ever been a lady provost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Yes, there has. [Interruption.] Apparently Glasgow and Edinburgh have been sufficiently enlightened to have had a lady provost. [Interruption.] There seems to be a debate on the subject. Whether there were a lord provost or a lady provost, that would not detract from the dignity of the office.
Some historical analysis is necessary. I believe that Perth has had a lord provost, who in the order of precedence in Scotland ranked after the lord provost of Edinburgh. Perth may no longer exist as a single unitary local authority, but Perth and Kinross may wish to revive that tradition. If that were to be the view of the citizens in the area of the new council, why should they not be allowed so to decide?
If the citizens decide that, but it is thought that they should not be able to make the change at their own will, it should not be a politician such as the Secretary of State for Scotland who determines whether they should be allowed to do so.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am no expert on precedence, but I seem to remember that the lord provost ranked higher than the Secretary of State. Might that not be the reason why the Secretary of State is trying to limit the number of lord provosts in Scotland?

Mr. Wallace: I do not want to get into a debate when I am not entirely sure of the facts. I should have thought that, within his or her own domain, the lord provost


ranked higher than the Secretary of State—and higher than most other people, too. The Secretary of State is perhaps worried that there could be more places in Scotland where he is not the highest-ranked person.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Secretary of State should not make the decision because it should not be made by a politician. Politiians emerge into such positions through the democratic process. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the democratic process should not determine whether an area should have a lord provost?

Mr. Wallace: The democratic process that Liberal Democrats would like to see is one that involves people within local communities, not one that is handed up to someone who has the most doubtful democratic legitimacy within Scotland.
If it is not to be the Secretary of State, perhaps Her Majesty might be a better person to make the decision. I understand—the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) can tell me whether I am right—that Elgin laid claim to a lord provost because, on a royal visit some time during the 19th century, Queen Victoria referred to the first citizen of Elgin as lord provost. Since then, the people of Elgin have rightly thought that the title had been conferred upon them.
The Bill emasculates and virtually abolishes local government in Scotland. Many people will ask who is keeping alive the strong traditions of local government and local democracy in Scotland. The amendment shows what the rest of the Bill does. The only person who will have any real power is the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, a few hours ago in the House, the Prime Minister, no less, said that the difference between having a referendum in Northern Ireland and having one in either Wales or Scotland was that the latter had a
well-established system of local democracy and local government"?
That being so, why are the Government destroying it in this Bill?

Mr. Wallace: I understand that the Prime Minister said something similar to my local newspaper, the Press and Journal, last week, although that was a useless and inappropriate comparison in the first place.
Our local government is being emasculated. In many respects, this Lords amendment encapsulates the worst features of the Bill—the centralising, overweening power of the Secretary of State, who wants his claws on everything that would smack of local democracy—and because of that we shall divide the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am a little taken aback that the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wishes to divide the House on this topic.
As this is my first speech this evening, it is appropriate for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I read in the newspapers that the Opposition Whips are appointing yuppies to their office; that term does not immediately come to mind in relation to the hon.

Gentleman. [Laughter.] It is fair to say, however, that he is respected on both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made a somewhat unexpected assault on Lords amendment No. 1, which was debated at some length in the other place. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall the debate on a Government amendment on the use of "chairman" or "convenor" [Interruption.] I am sorry. That was on an Opposition amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which the Government accepted. Hon. Members may recall that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said during that debate that the term "chair" was not so much feminism as "furniturism".
The debate in the House of Lords was conducted on a serious topic, and we considered the topic for a considerable time over the summer recess. I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that somehow the amendment is an attack on local government: it is not. We believe that the Bill should not provide a complete veto for councils that might wish to use the title of lord provost.
The amendment was tabled on an all-party basis, and it would be useful to the House if I spelt out in some detail precisely what it means. In effect, it places a requirement on any council—apart from the councils of the four cities to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred—to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before calling its convenor "lord provost".
On reflection, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may think that that is a reasonable compromise. Concerns were expressed in another place, and it was argued that other places in Scotland—the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to Perth, which is a good example, and Paisley perhaps is another—might wish their first citizen to have the title of lord provost. It is clear, however, that it is unreasonable to expect that the title of lord provost should be held by communities at will throughout the whole of Scotland. [Interruption.] I do not believe that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who apparently dissents from what I am saying, believes that every borough in Cunninghame, South should be entitled to have their first citizen made a lord provost. I do not think that that is a reasonable proposition. We propose a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the Minister recall that, in 1974, the so-called four cities expanded their areas and became district councils? If those areas are to retain the right to have a lord provost, surely it would be better to have a certain size requirement for councils to have a lord provost. If the four cities expand into areas that, more traditionally, are cities and a nearby council is a reasonable size, why should not the latter have the opportunity to call its convenor "lord provost"?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. It is generally agreed that the four historic cities should be able to call their first citizen lord provost. He asks about outlying areas, and whether there should be a requirement for a population size of 100,000, 90,000 or whatever. I have no doubt that he had Rutherglen in mind when he made that point, but the point of Lords amendment No. 1 is that it would not rule that out. Under it, any request on behalf of a community to


have its first citizen named lord provost would be considered by my right hon. Friend on its merits. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition; it is not a particularly partisan matter.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Why should the Secretary of State have that power? He has gathered every other power to himself under the Bill. Why should he say that one city shall have a lord provost but another shall not? Again, the Government are taking power away from the people. Why in all logic, history or justice should the Secretary of State take to himself, and himself alone, the right to choose who should have a lord provost?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not propose that every community in Scotland should have the right to have its first citizen entitled "lord provost". That does not make any sense and it would not be supported by the residents of the four cities that are already entitled to give that title to their first citizen.
The title of lord provost applies irrespective of sex. If a woman becomes lord provost, she will be so entitled. I hope that the House will accept that the amendment is a perfectly reasonable compromise. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is too much chatter on the Benches.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 24.

Division No.319
[19.41 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butler, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clappison, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Coe, Sebastian


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Congdon, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyes, Roland
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dixon, Don


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Sir Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Budgen, Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Burns, Simon
Dykes, Hugh





Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Mackay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mans, Keith


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Fry, Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Combs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rathbone, Tim


Horam, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S))


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)






Steen, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Stephen, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Michael Bates and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Dr. Liam Fox.




NOES


Alton, David
Loyden, Eddie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Barnes, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Salmond, Alex


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Donohoe, Brian H.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Mrs. Ray Michie and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8

TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 39, after ("authorities") insert
(", or of the new water and sewerage authority or authorities (within the meaning of Part II of this Act),")

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5.

Mr. Stewart: The amendments all relate to clauses which deal with transitional staffing and property issues, and are all purely technical.
As Liberal Democrat Members will know, amendment No. 3 was put forward by their colleagues in the House of Lords to implement a recommendation of the delegated powers Scrutiny Committee.
Amendments Nos. 4, 4(a) and 5 are technical drafting amendments designed to clarify the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the appointment and removal from office of the chairman and members of the staff commission and property commission. This is a

straightforward legal drafting matter. I am advised that, as they stand, clauses 12(3) and 19(2) and the scope of any order made under them may not be entirely clear.
I reassure the House that there is no question of those powers being taken as a precursor to dismissing either the chairman or any of the members of the staff commission. Indeed, may I place on record our support for the members of the shadow staff commission, whom we intend, under the terms of clause 12 as amended, to appoint as members of the statutory staff commission.
I commend these amendments in the knowledge that they are purely technical and result from advice from our lawyers.

Mr. George Robertson: As one of my colleagues just said, this is the "sack the board" amendment. All the Minister's platitudes suggesting that it is purely a straightforward, technical, drafting amendment are unlikely to fall on fertile ground on this side of the House. The reality behind the whole Bill is that the Government, and especially the Secretary of State for Scotland, are taking more and more powers unto themselves.
The amendment is one of the most sinister that we have seen, with implications which go way beyond anything suggested by the Minister. It will empower the Secretary of State to dismiss the chairman and members of the staff commission without reason, notice or justification. Yet the staff commission was to be independent, with the power to look objectively at the problems facing local government after a major and unnecessary reorganisation. It was to smooth the transition effortlessly from one system to another.
The question that anybody would want to pose at this time is why it was necessary for the matter to be raised in the House of Lords. We have debated this Bill on and off for some 200 hours in this parliamentary Session. The Official Report amounts to the equivalent of three volumes of "War and Peace". We sat through those debates painfully and we learned so much, but we were able to impart so little to Tory Members. During the whole debate, nothing was said about the powers that it was necessary to take in relation to the staff commission.
In July, the Lord Advocate told the House of Lords:
There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence of the staff commission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1908.]
An amendment has now been tabled to give the Secretary of State powers to clarify and make explicit his power to dismiss without reason the whole or part of the staff commission. The Lord Advocate is an honourable individual in the Government, which may distinguish him from many other Government members. He gave his word to the House of Lords in July; yet the Government felt obliged to table an amendment to clarify and reinforce the power to get rid of people who have been asked to take on a substantial job of work—allegedly independently and without pressure—on behalf of the people of Scotland.
Why have the Government chosen to squeeze through this amendment after the House of Lords stage, right under the wire at the end of the whole process? This enormously serious issue goes to the heart of the Government's handling of the reorganisation. Some 300,000 people employed in local government in Scotland, delivering valuable and crucial services to the Scottish people, are worried about their future. What are


they expected to read into the fact that the Government have taken upon themselves, at the very end of the process, the right to dismiss without reason the members of the staff commission in whose hands their future is placed?
One does not have to be Bill Fyfe, ex-chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board, to know that, when the Government take powers unto themselves, they use them. He was asked to resign when the Secretary of State, did not have the power to demand or command his resignation. Yet here the Government are taking that power upon themselves. There is no hon. Member on either side of this House who does not believe that, if it suited the Government to use those powers, they would use them quickly and without question.
By no stretch of the imagination, therefore, is this simply a technical drafting amendment, and we are unlikely to accept it in that light. If it were a technical drafting amendment, why is the power to dismiss so sweeping? Why is it not qualified in the Lords amendment? Why are Scottish Office Ministers taking greater powers in Scotland in that connection than they have in Wales, where commissioners on the staff commission can be removed for predetermined reasons only? That is a substantial question for the Minister for responsible for industry and local government at the Scottish Office. Why is there that big difference between Wales and Scotland in relation to the staff commission? And why is that power being taken in relation to the current reorganisation of local government when there was no similar power in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which reorganised local government on the previous occasion in Scotland? The Minister is obliged to answer those two questions if he is to be taken seriously as someone who is not here to intimidate people in the staff commission.
Opposition Members try not to be suspicious of the Government, but if we were suspicious, we would consider the remarks that Mr. Robert Peggie made on 21 September 1994 at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference. Do we perhaps find there an explanation of why the Government are so keen at this stage to introduce powers to dismiss all or part of the staff commission without reason?
Mr. Peggie's appointment was welcomed on both sides of the House and my hon. Friends were explicit in recognising him as a man of impeccable qualifications and impeccable background, who took on an unpopular job for the Government but has done it assiduously. On 20 September, reported in the newspapers on 21 September, Mr. Peggie made his view known on the subject of the staff transfer from the old system of local authorities to the one that the Government propose. I quote from The Scotsman:
Robert Peggie told a conference at Dunblane yesterday that councils were ill-prepared for local government reorganisation and the timetable was dangerously tight.
"Dangerously tight"—those were Mr. Peggie's words.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman also concede that Mr. Peggie is on record in public and in the press as agreeing that the amendments are purely technical?

8 pm

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Peggie may feel that Mr. Peggie is safe. We may perhaps have more grounds for doubting

Mr. Peggie's security of tenure than Mr. Peggie has at this stage. I am simply saying, as one of those who have some experience of the Government's legislative intentions, that perhaps Mr. Peggie is being unduly sanguine at this time, in his condition, and that he should perhaps be more wary of the Government. He only has to stand up at a conference and announce that the Government's timetable is dangerously tight, and suddenly an amendment is produced in the House of Lords to give the Secretary of State the power to dismiss him and other members of the staff commission in circumstances which do not apply to the staff commission in Wales. Perhaps Mr. Peggie should look carefully at the number of spoons in his cabinet before he leaves the room.
The Dundee Courier and Advertiser reported the same speech by Mr. Peggie. Mr. Andrew Nicol, Scottish political editor of the Courier and Advertiser, said, quoting Mr. Peggie:
There is grave concern about the short time-scale for the implementation of the reorganisation scheme and local government generally is ill-prepared for this reorganisation, in comparison to 1974.
Mr. Peggie is absolutely right to give that warning. It is a serious warning, which should be listened to by anyone in Scotland who depends on local government services—and precious few people do not.
Vulnerable people employed by local government are worried sick about their prospects and the future of their jobs. Countless thousands of vulnerable people in Scottish society depend on local government services delivered by the 300,000 local government officers, and have reason to be worried about the time scale and the timetable that the Government are embarking on for the reorganisation.
It might be unduly suspicious of us to say that the Government are firing a shot across the bows of the staff commission with the amendment, but we know what the Government can do, and have done. Few people in Scotland would dismiss our suspicion, and few will not be worried by the fact that the amendment has appeared—and appeared so late in the day.
With the amendment, the Government are sending a clear message to the staff commission that it had better not be as independent as its members thought, when they were appointed, that it would be. That is a clear move to intimidate the staff commission from making the type of frank, honest and reasonable statements that Mr. Peggie and his colleagues have felt obliged to make public since they were appointed.
Apart from the timetable and quality of services in local government, Mr. Peggie and his colleagues are worried about the impact that it will have on the people who are currently employed in local government as a whole. That is why they have started to tackle the issue that Her Majesty's Government should have been tackling—where the reorganisation fits into European law.
It has become increasingly obvious that statements made by Ministers in Standing Committee—that the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 may have no implication for the local government reorganisation—are wrong. Counsel's opinion, which has been commissioned by UNISON—the largest union in local government—makes it clear beyond doubt that both TUPE and the acquired rights directive will apply to all people employed by local authorities at the present time, and in relation to the transfer that will occur if the unitary


authorities are up and running. That has implications for the people concerned, for the Government and for the staff commission, and it has serious implications for the financial projections that the Government have tried to sell during the entire period.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the trade unions and the importance of protecting their rights. Would he be prepared to declare whether he is supported in any way by trade unions?

Mr. Robertson: I tell the hon. Gentleman, who should be very cautious when he starts talking about who is sponsored by whom—I wonder how he drove to the debate this evening, for instance—that I am sponsored by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. I am an officer of the GMB union on leave of absence. I have been for the past 16 years, and I do not expect that it is a right that I will have to take up to become re-employed by the union.
However, my anxiety now is not for the unions. I am quoting counsel's opinion supplied to UNISON, one of the unions in local government, but my concern, and their concern, is for the human beings, the employees of local government—300,000 of them at present—who are important in themselves, and who deliver services that are crucial to the people of Scotland and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, insofar as they are constituents of his until the next election.
Counsel's opinion is explicit and important. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of announcing frankly, on behalf of the Government, that he agrees with that adjudication, in order that the work of the staff commission may go ahead, and that Mr. Peggie and his colleagues may declare to the employees of local government where they stand.
I quote the final conclusion of Mr. Aiden O'Neill's—counsel's—opinion of 18 September 1994:
Dismissal of local authority employees, whether before or after the transfer, will only be found to be justifiable if shown to be for economic, technical or organisational reasons unconnected with the fact of the transfer itself.
That has dramatic implications for the costings of the Government, and also for the individuals involved.
The only people who have not pronounced on TUPE and the acquired rights directive and their implications for local government are the Government. Today's debate is a real opportunity for the Minister to make it clear that the Government accept, without legal challenge and without any doubt, that TUPE and the acquired rights directive apply to all employees of local government at present, and that employees in local government can therefore look forward at least to having the protection offered by European law.
Ministers already have considerable powers over the staff commission. There is no need for the House, or Parliament, to give Ministers any more powers. If the Secretary of State wishes to reserve the power to dismiss members of the commission for specific contingencies, let him spell them out, and spell them out now, in advance, so that they, we and everyone else at least know what the situation should be.
The Government should not have this power. It is one more arm-twisting weapon for a Government who already have an armoury of bully-boy powers, and the Bill will confer more. The people of Scotland are sick of the Government and of legislation such as this. They reject the concept of the amendment, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I should first declare an interest, not least because it is fashionable and also because I am a parliamentary consultant to UNISON, which is the largest trade union in local government.
I have some past involvement with the staff commission. I am old enough to have been involved in the last reorganisation of local government. At that time, I was a NALGO district officer and had to appear before the staff commission, which was chaired by a distinguished Privy Councillor. The value of the staff commission to local government officers cannot be overstated. They place great stock in its existence and in the fact that it will still be there after this reorganisation.
I like to think that I helped to persuade the Government to introduce the commission, as they showed some initial reluctance to do so. But it was the right course, and the amendment is wrong. I hope that the Government will change their mind.
Local government officers value the staff commission's independence and the dispassionate advice that it gives to local authorities on behalf of employees, while taking account of the employers' point of view. The amendment endangers that independence and will result in a loss of authority because the staff commission will be undermined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the amendment will mean that, if the staff commission does not toe the line, its members will be fired. The chairman of the commission will be told that, if he gives advice that is not liked by the Government, who are apparently all-knowing as to what is good for people, he will be fired.
Why commission members who are appointed by the Government in the usual way should be threatened with dismissal is not immediately apparent to me. The Minister made an awful speech about lord provosts; one hopes that his speech on the amendment will be an improvement on that. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will explain what it is all about.
The amendment is a mean-minded approach to an important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton made a longish speech, but that is not a criticism, merely a statement. He told me before he started to speak that he would lead by example and that I should not make a long speech. He said that he would show me how to do it. I am trying to pad out the debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to resume his speech.

Mr. Hogg: I shall return to my main theme. The Government are in danger of being small-minded to the point at which they will destroy an important aspect of local government. As I have said, they were right to set up the staff commission, but they are spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It would be simpler to leave the matter as it is, and local government employees throughout


Scotland would appreciate that. I hope that the Government will take account of the views of someone who has at least some experience of staff commission operations. It was well worth while in the 1970s, and we want to see it function in the way that it did then. That aim is not helped by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) has drawn on his experience to outline what happened in the 1970s during the previous local government reform. I was there, and I share his views.
I hope that the Government are listening to the voice of experience, because they are taking us into territory that we have been through before. I hope that the mistakes that were made then will not be repeated, but I fear they will, because of the way that the Government are hassling the measure through. The people who will suffer as a result will be not only local government staff but the people of Scotland who rely on the services that they provide.
The Minister tried to dismiss the amendment as a purely drafting or technical measure. That may be so, but the problem arises because of the political powers that the amendment gives the Secretary of State. The commissions are important mechanisms to ensure fairness, justice and efficiency in the transfer of powers to the new authorities. They will play a crucial role during the transitional phase, but the amendments would place them totally in the Secretary of State's hands.
We are told that the amendments simply clarify the Secretary of State's powers. But because of draconian powers taken arbitrarily by the Secretary of State to suit himself and his political purposes, local government is now simply the creature of central Government. Now he is even dominating the transitional arrangements and apparently allowing no freedom of action to anyone but himself. He can appoint and dismiss at will the commissions that he will set up. If he does not like the actions of the commissions, he will have the power to get rid of them. That is hardly freedom or independence of action. Local government staff and people in Scotland have to rely on the commissions to find a fair solution to problems.
The amendments give the Government yet another power. The Secretary of State appoints the staff in property commissions, and now seeks powers to get rid of them. Seeking complete power over his own creatures seems a wee bit paranoid—or does the Secretary of State envisage that these temporary bodies will in some way be independent in their pronouncements and have to be brought to heel for political reasons?
I hope that the commissions will defend the public's interest, and will seek fair solutions to complex and over-hasty procedures. It is not the fault of the commissions that the Government are hustling the Bill through as fast as they can, but the commissions will have to cope with the practical problems that the Government have created.
The Government have given the staff commission and the property commission little time to complete their work, and the amendments betray a hint of panic in conferring powers of instant dismissal. Presumably, if

either commission shows any independence of thought or points to any shortcomings in the Government's botched local government schemes, it can be dismissed. That is too much power, and it is being taken arbitrarily by the Government.
The Minister must explain the import of the amendments, and not just say that they are technical. Why are they necessary? Are they simply an insurance policy that gives legal powers to the Secretary of State? Can he tell us in clear terms so that Parliament and commission staff know under what circumstances the power can be invoked? Clearly, the Government must have some situation or situations in mind; otherwise, the power would not be sought. The Minister should take the time to state clearly why the provision is required and how it will be used. We have no reason to trust the Government.

Mr. McAvoy: Like my hon. Friends, I was astonished by the Minister's statement that the amendments are technical. I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are plainly not technical. They are authoritarian, striking a dagger straight to the heart of the independent operation of the staff commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) described how the problems of transition from one system to another were tackled just over 20 years ago. It was more than 20 years ago, and contrasts with what is happening now.
All the problems that involve the staff commission, such as deciding where employees go and how they are treated, should be dealt with by a completely independent body. At the end of the day, if the amendment is accepted, if the staff commission has an idea or takes a course of action which the Secretary of State for Scotland does not like purely on political grounds, never mind anything else, the Secretary of State can remove either the chairman or the members of that commission.
How can the members of the staff commission reasonably be expected to work in an independent atmosphere and without the threat of intimidation? If they say yea or nay in any way that differs from their master's intentions, they can be removed from the commission. It amounts to a sword of Damocles hanging over the commission, so that it can never have freedom of action or independence.
It is disgraceful that the future of 300,000 local government employees in Scotland should be treated in such a cavalier fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned the Welsh comparison. Surely what is good enough for Wales is good enough for any part of the United Kingdom. I remind the Government that they are a Conservative and Unionist Government. How can they justify treating one part of the United Kingdom differently from another specifically on the issue over the staff commission?
The TUPE regulations have been mentioned. Many of us are concerned that, as soon as the commission recommends or endorses them, in will step the Government and remove people from that commission. The staff commission should be totally free to reach any recommendation on the TUPE recommendations.


Turning to the wider remit of that staff commission, with which the amendment deals directly, and its independence, if the staff commission knows—I am sure that a message can be got through one way or another—that any of its recommendations on appropriate arrangements for staff deciding to accept redundancy or early retirement approach what the Secretary of State would like to see, it will know full well that employers would meet those recommendations, which therefore would not affect its deliberations. It is disgraceful that there should be such an amendment.
Amendment No. 5 makes the same so-called technical amendment to the property commission. All the reasons for opposing amendment No. 4 apply to amendment No. 5.
The work of the property commission is of immense importance, although the Minister did not spend too much time on it. I shall use an example from my constituency. The main part of my constituency is being detached from a larger authority. Like the staff commission, the property commission needs to be totally independent, and needs to take certain attitudes in dealing with property disputes, particularly in my constituency.
I give one example of an issue that could face the property commission. In the royal burgh of Rutherglen, a statue of St. Eloi was found in the ruins of old St. Mary's church, which was destroyed after the reformation; a parish church was built on that site. The statue was found in the late 19th century. It dates from the middle ages, and always took pride of place in the Rutherglen burgh museum, until—lo and behold—Glasgow district council transferred it from its museum, and put it into an exhibition in the Glasgow cathedral.
People in Rutherglen were proud that part of their heritage was being displayed, but the magazine advertising that exhibition had the statue of St. Eloi on its cover, with a statement along the lines that, although the statue was found in the ruins of the old parish church in Rutherglen, there was no doubt that it belonged in Glasgow, because it came from the ruins of Glasgow cathedral during the reformation.
It may seem a small matter to some colleagues, but I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if they are not here to represent people and their fears and understandings, they should not be here at all.

Mr. Gallie: I sympathise totally with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He makes a very good point indeed. Perhaps the Government should give the Secretary of State powers to oversee such situations and make sure that great boroughs like Glasgow do not rob the smaller ones.

Mr. McAvoy: I do not accept that at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) described the atmosphere of what happened 20 years ago. I am prepared to trust a staff commission and property commission to deal fairly with problems. We should bear in mind the fact that a big council such as Glasgow or Edinburgh may be able persuade the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to take a certain line in property disputes.
The property commission should be as independent as the staff commission. There are bound to be numerous property disputes. It is essential that members of the property commission are able to tackle their work in a calm and rational manner without fearing that, if they step out of line, the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers will sack them. I am totally opposed to both amendments.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am pleased that we have at last reached an important debate, after being trapped in the debate we had earlier. Using the same metaphor as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), the ship of state does not just need some tar; it is so seriously structurally flawed in everything in the Bill that the sea is lapping at the captain's door at this very minute.
The debate in Committee was rather fraught. There were expressions of concern about an unknown commission which might or might not damage the reorganisation of local government by making the wrong staffing decisions. The Secretary of State pulled out Mr. Robert Peggie's name, like a rabbit out of the hat, saying not that he was cuddly but that he would be honest and fair, and that he would have some support for his professionalism and competence.
Now, however, we are debating a Lords amendment which means that, at the whim of the Secretary of State, that person held up by the Secretary of State as a example in staffing matters can be removed from office, and the commission with him. We must express concern about amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
I am reminded of a planning inquiry I once sat on, where the planning consultant applied for an architect-designed bungalows. He put a very good case to the planning authority, but as soon as the permission was granted—I am told that it happens often in Scotland—the developer had gone and a sign was up saying, "Vacant plot available with planning permission for development". That is rather like the staff commission, but the sign says, "Vacant committee with permission not for development but for demolition of local government. Only known Tory supporters need apply". That could be the scenario we face.
The Minister is pulling a face, but it is rather strange that health boards are another group of quangos to which the Government can appoint and from which they can remove people at any time. For example, the well respected chairman of Forth Valley health board was removed, and Mrs. Iris Isbister, a former Tory councillor and the wife of a consultant, was appointed. The havoc wreaked by that health board since that person was appointed shows that we have real cause for concern when the Secretary of State has powers to remove or appoint members or chairs of commissions.
I am particularly concerned about the present Secretary of State—and with reason. Never has a Secretary of State for Scotland been so out of touch; he is a Secretary of State whose party has the support of only 14 per cent. of the people in Scotland, and he was deaf to the response to the water referendum in Strathclyde.
As the clause mentions the Secretary of State, we have to examine his credentials. More recently, he was deaf to the demand for a children Act in Scotland,


which is now the only country in Europe which does not have the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child in law to protect its children.
The Secretary of State is a barrier to progress, and in no way an arbiter of competence or someone in whom we can have confidence.
I am also worried about the local impact of flawed or prejudiced political decisions being taken because of the pressures that could be applied to both staff and property commissions.
8.30 pm
Much has been said about the importance of decentralisation. The Opposition made the point in Committee that no staff resources have been allocated to that. Theoretically, the staff commission would ensure that people of the appropriate quality, with decent pay and conditions of service, could deliver decentralisation. I am now seriously concerned that if they tried to do so and it cost more than Government liked, they would be removed from their positions.
Property needs have been debated at great length. At last, Falkirk is to become a unitary authority, but it will have a massive property deficit. It needs property, but members of a property commission that allocated resources to such councils could be removed by the Secretary of State if that allocation did not fit in with his other spending plans and with the shadow budgets that had been set.
The break-up of education would be disastrous for many children. It is important to get the right calibre of officer with proper pay and conditions. The staff commission is one of the safeguards that would achieve that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has said, we are concerned not only about human beings but about the effect that bad staff commission decisions would have on services. We must consider both those who deliver the services and those who receive them.
To use American terminology, it is time for the Secretary of State to butt out. He has done enough damage already with this ill-considered Bill and he should leave the staff and property commissions with an independent role.

Mr. Wallace: I, too, oppose Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5. However, before dealing with them I want to register the fact that Lords amendment No. 3 was one of the very few amendments tabled by an Opposition Member—my noble Friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth—that was accepted. Indeed, so shattering was that event that Lord Ewing of Kirkford said that it felt as though Cowdenbeath were in the European Cup. Only Lord Ewing would know how that would feel.
I endorse the concern expressed about the wording of Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which provide for the removal from office of those who have been appointed to the staff commission. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the staff commission has among its functions the keeping under review of certain issues, including the transfer of staff under the Bill. That is important, given the operation of the TUPE regulations.
The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to confirm that all staff transfers between local authorities, old and new, under the Bill would be covered by TUPE. The

Minister should be aware that, in the other place, the Lord Advocate suggested that some transfers would riot be covered. I am not allowed to quote him directly, but he said that the TUPE regulations were open to various opinions. There have certainly been enough legal cases to confirm that view. He accepted that they would undoubtedly apply in some circumstances, but said that they would not necessarily apply in others.
We are talking about people's livelihoods. What the Bill has done more than anything else is to reduce morale among those who work for local authorities. Uncertainty will still hang over them while the senior Law Officer in Scotland says that the TUPE regulations will apply in some cases, but not in others. The Minister owes us an explanation tonight of the precise application of the regulations.
We have also been told that the words "and removal from office" are essential, but that the provision is purely technical and that there is no intention to use it. If so, why was it included in the first place? If there was concern whether the original Bill gave the Secretary of State the power to make the appointments, the Government could have simply stuck to words such as "the appointment by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission."
The Lord Advocate also said that the additional words "and removal from office" were necessary because there might be circumstances in which someone would have to be removed. What are those circumstances? There is a great contrast between appointments to the staff commission—where the Secretary of State wants absolute power to remove people from office—and appointments that he can make under schedule 7 to the new water and sewage authorities.
Paragraph 7 states that the Secretary of State can remove a member of the authority, but only in specified circumstances such as sequestration of an estate, incapacity by physical or mental illness, absence from meetings or being unable or unfit to discharge his functions or unsuitable to continue as a member.
It is not unreasonable to point to the proposed provision covering removal from office, bearing in mind that the Lord Advocate said that there might be circumstances in which that will be necessary. What are those circumstances? They are not spelt out in the Bill. The Minister must give an explanation this evening.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hon. Members spent 177 hours in Committee on the Bill, but during all that time there was no suggestion that an amendment along these lines would be tabled. Governments do riot introduce amendments just for the hell of it or for fun. There is always a reason, but we have not been told what it is.
Forgive our curiosity, but neither have we been told who initiated the amendment. Was it Ministers or was it Government lawyers? I have a high respect for Government lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen. I find it difficult to believe that the draftsmen were so incompetent or the lawyers so ill informed that they did not think of such a meaningful amendment during all those hours that the Committee sat, or at least when they were preparing the Bill.


I want to put a direct question to the Minister: was it political Ministers who initiated the amendment, or was it Government lawyers or parliamentary draftsmen? Which?

Mr. Thomas Graham: I can answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)— the amendment is the result of the Government's political decision. There is do doubt in my mind that they decided that a mere "Peggie" would not go into a round hole. When the Minister speaks about a technical amendment, he means getting the power to allow the Secretary of State to press a button to wipe out the likes of Mr. Peggie, who may not carry out his duties in the way that the Tories want.
I warn the House that the Government have proved what they are prepared to do. They wiped out the Greater London council because it did not agree with the Government's aspirations. They pressed the button and wiped out unionism at GCHQ in Cheltenham. The amendment would give them further powers to take more decisions like that, so we must be extremely careful.
The amendment should be opposed by all those who are concerned about democracy. The commissions should be left with a neutral hand, just like any sheriff or judge. I want to know why the Government want another button to press. They have already pressed every damaging button in their power. Tonight we are debating an aspect of local government reorganisation in Scotland that none of the people of Scotland want.

Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on having the best line of the debate so far— [Interruption.] I said "so far".
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) raised property issues that I shall consider carefully. I point out to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that, in my opening speech, I said that Lords amendment No. 3 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place. I am glad that it has his support.
Two essential points have been made about the substance of the debate. First, a comparison has been made with Wales. I confirm that, in the Welsh legislation, all the provisions relating to the staff commission, including powers of dismissal, are in a schedule. Therefore, there is no difference of substance between the two Bills.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked whether this was not all the most terrible conspiracy. That was encapsulated in the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who fairly asked whether the amendments had been initiated by Ministers or by draftsmen. I can tell him without equivocation that they were initiated by draftsmen. There was no ministerial instruction.
Clause 12(3) already empowers the Secretary of State to provide for the constitution and membership of the staff commission. As hon. Members will know, Bills are constantly scrutinised throughout their parliamentary passage. There is nothing new in that.
There was doubt as to whether that general power in clause 12(3) was sufficient to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint the chairman and members of the commission. When it was put to him, that doubt was shared by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, to whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred, and that doubt is resolved by the amendment.
These are technical amendments.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has explained half the story, which is that the Secretary of State needed the power to appoint, but he has not explained why he needed the power to remove.

Mr. Stewart: The two go together, do they not? Clearly the Secretary of State must have the power to appoint and to remove members. That is exactly the position in Wales. That is exactly the position in relation to all our public appointments.

Mr. Wallace: I note with interest that the Minister says: that that is exactly the position in relation to all public appointments. The power given to the Secretary of State in the BIll with regard to the new water and sewerage authorities specifies the circumstances in which he can remove. There is no such specification of circumstances with regard to the staff commission. Moreover, I can see no provision in the Bill for removing members of the customers council for the new water and sewerage authorities.

Mr. Stewart: Let me spell it out, in the hope that I will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer.
The legal advice we received was that clauses 12 and 19, as originally drafted, gave rise to some doubt about whether regulations appointing or removing members would have been ultra vires. Clearly that had to be sorted out. The amendments were not initiated by Ministers, and were not a matter of policy. [Interruption.] Of course Ministers take responsibility for them. They were initiated by the lawyers and the draftsmen. There is nothing unusual in that, and on those grounds I reject the conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Hamilton.

Mr. George Robertson: We have had a good and useful debate, with my hon. Friends making brief, pertinent and relevant points. Far from being reassured by what the Minister has said in a brief intervention at the end, our suspicions might have been seen even to grow.
We have gained no reassurance that members of this important commission would not be removed without due cause. We have been given no assurance by the Minister that some system would be established to assure local government employees or Members of the House that, in circumstances where individuals had to be removed, the grounds would be made known.
We have simply been told that, in the case here of what the draftsmen deem to be an illegal defect, the Secretary of State will take upon himself not only the power to appoint but the power to remove, and to remove without any reasons being given to the members of the staff commmission.
8.45 pm
It is a function of Ministers of the Crown to take the advice of draftsmen and to say to those draftsmen that Members of Parliament will rightly ask why Ministers are now taking what appear to be new powers in relation to an independent staff commission, and that Ministers will not be able to give any reassurance.
Why is the Minister coming along and hiding behind technical and legal advice, when he has created a political dilemma for the staff commission and its chairman? Surely it is up to Ministers to reassure Members of the House and 300,000 people in local government that the powers he is taking upon himself and the Secretary of State will not be used arbitrarily, willy-nilly or without any justification being offered.

Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the Minister will have the leave of the House to speak again if he wishes to do so. But there is a suspicion, which I think is generally shared, that he curtails his speeches when he does not know the answer to the question he is being asked.
I specifically heard the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), not once but several times, ask the simple question: why were not the grounds for dismissal specified in the Bill? That is an entirely reasonable question. If the Minister has the lease of the House to speak again, I am sure that he will address that point, as opposed to brushing it aside with some bluster.
For example, we would like to know whether the Minister telephoned the Prime Minister's office for expert guidance on the grounds for dismissing people from office. It is reasonable to ask why the grounds are not specified on the face of the Bill. If the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again, will he answer that simple question?

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Stewart: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am genuinely trying to reassure Opposition Members. I may not have succeeded, but I hope that what I am saying is clear. Of course Ministers accept responsibility for the amendments. I was asked whether they were the result of some policy initiative by Ministers, or whether they were simply put to Ministers by the draftsmen. Of course we accept responsibility. Or course I accept that they are legally necessary.
If it is any reassurance to Opposition Members, we entirely accept the independence of the staff commission and of any property commission. There is no threat to that. Secondly, if there should be a need on occasion to change the membership of the staff commission, we shall not do so without consultation beforehand with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and representatives of the other two Scottish political parties.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12

STAFF COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 8, line 33, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert
(", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 247.

Division No. 320]
[20.51 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elletson, Harold


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Sir Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Congdon, David
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwoood, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moate, Sir Roger
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John





Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waterson, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. David Willetts and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainger, Nick
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Denham, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Ms Janet
Dixon, Don


(Ros'dale)
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Berry, Roger
Fraser, John


Betts, Clive
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Chidgey, David
Hall, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Church, Judith
Hardy, peter


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hodge, Margaret


Coffey, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld))


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen


Cummings, John
North)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jamieson, David






Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Parry, Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Patchett, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Tessa
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Prescott, John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S.
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry
Reid, Dr John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rendel, David


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Salmond, Alex


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maddock, Diana
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Spellar, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McMaster, Gordon
Straw, Jack


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John
Timms, Stephen


Meale, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Walley, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Watson, Mike


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Welsh, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Andrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Hara, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Olner, William
Mr. Jim Dowd

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 19

PROPERTY COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 8, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert
(", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 192.

Division No. 321]
[21.05 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hor Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Faber, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, Sir John


Clappison, James
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Congdon, David
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Hicks, Robert
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rathbone, Tim


Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Richards, Rod


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spring, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Stern, Michael


Lidington, David
Stewart, Allan


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, sir Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, D)


Madel, Sir David
Temple-Morris, peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thomason, Roy


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marland, Paul
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Mates, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


McLoughlin, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moate, Sir Roger
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Neubert, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann





Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Wilshire, David
Young, Rt Hon sir George


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. David Willetts and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Simon Burns




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
George, Bruce


Ainger, Nick
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Allen, Graham
Godsiff, Roger


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Ms Janet
Gordon, Mildred


(Ros'dale)
Graham, Thomas


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Austin-Walker, John
Grocott, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike


Barron, Kevin
Hanson, David


Battle, John
Hardy, Peter


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Harvey, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Heppell, John


Bell, Stuart
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hodge, Margaret


Benton, Joe
Hoey, Kate


Berry, Roger
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Betts, Clive
Home Robertson, John


Boateng, Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Hoon, Geoffrey


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Howells, Dr.Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes Robert (Aberdeen


Burden, Richard
North)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ingram, Adam


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chidgey, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff c)


Church, Judith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jowell, Tessa


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Coffey, Ann
Khabra, Piara S.


Connarty, Michael
Kilfoyle, peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Corston, Jean
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Loyden, Eddie


Dalyell, Tam
Lynne, Ms Liz


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum


Davidson, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Maddock, Diana


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Alice


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, s)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John


Fisher, Mark
McKelvey, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McMaster, Gordon


Fraser, John
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michael, Alun






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Hara, Edward
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, William
Stevenson, George


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Purchase, Ken
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Watson, Mike


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rendel, David
Winnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wise, Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Don Foster and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Andrew Welsh

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 36

FIRE SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 32, leave out lines 34 to 41.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 50.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is a technical amendment but I shall be happy to explain it to anyone who so wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 44, to insert the following new clause—Chief social work officer—
. For section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (director of social work), there shall be substituted the following section—

"Chief social work officer.

3.—(1) For the purposes of their functions under this Act and the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, a local authority shall appoint an officer to be known as the chief social work officer.

(2) The qualifications of the chief social work officer shall be such as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out
'Chief social work officer.'
and insert
'Director of social work.'
(b) in line 7, leave out 'chief social work officer' and insert 'director of social work'.
(c) in line 8, leave out 'chief social work officer' and insert 'director of social work'.
(d) in line 10, at end add—
'(3) The director of social work shall hold his office during the pleasure of the local authority, but he shall not be removed therefrom, or be required to resign as an alternative thereto, except by a resolution of that authority passed by not less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the authority, notice of which specifies as an item of business the consideration of the removal from office of the director of social work or his being required to resign.
(4) The director of social work of a local authority shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, be employed by that authority in any other capacity.
(5) A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the director of social work in the performance of his functions.'.
It will also be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 30 to 32, 58 to 64, 70 to 72, 87 to 89, 105 to 107, 110, 112, 118 and 122 to 124.

Mr. John McAllion: We welcome the amendments passed in another place, which require each of the new unitary authorities to appoint a chief social work officer. The amendments were carried in response to Opposition concern and we welcome the fact that the Government now recognise the importance of having in each of the new unitary authority areas a professionally qualified officer who will be responsible for the management of social work and accountable to elected members for the delivery of social work services.
We especially welcome the fact that the Government have undergone a conversion on this issue because, as my hon. Friends—who, like me, debated the Bill for many long hours in Standing Committee—will testify, the Government at that time steadfastly refused to place any such requirement on the new authorities, despite our proposals. Indeed, Conservatives argued against the type of amendments that they have since supported in another place and voted against the amendment that they are now supporting. We can only applaud their conversion, albeit a late one, to a sensible position.
Some people—people less charitable than myself, perhaps—may wonder why the Government have changed their mind on the issue. It may have happened because the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is no longer the Minister responsible for local government, and has been replaced by his fellow Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). That change of personnel can hardly be described as signalling a Government move towards a more conciliatory moderate position.
The real reason for the Government's change of mind is that in this Administration, the Minister responsible for local government is not the Minister responsible for social work. Indeed, the Minister responsible for social work is not to be found anywhere on the Government Benches here tonight, because he sits in another place. He is, of course, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, a Tory of a different hue from that of any of the Tories now occupying the Front Bench in the House of Commons. Anyone who incurs the wrath of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) as Lord Fraser does cannot be all bad.
If we read what Lord Fraser said in Committee in another place, we can begin to get some inkling of why the Government changed their position. He said that he had no criticism of
social work committees … or of past or present directors of social work in Scotland.
Indeed, he recognised the contribution that they had all made, and said that they had been central in introducing care in the community and central, too, to the Government's policies on child care and criminal justice.
Lord Fraser singled out in particular directors of social work, who he said had
provided very sound professional oversight and should take credit for some very innovative thinking".
He said that he had no doubt that many, if not all, the unitary authorities would not only establish social work committees and appoint directors of social work, but would do so
along the lines of … the present statutory requirement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 2014.]
Indeed, the noble Lord gave as clear an indication as can be expected from a Tory Minister that, if he had had a free vote and could have cast it for what he in all conscience thought was the best course of action, he would have voted for the Opposition amendments. Of course, he is not allowed to do that in the adversarial atmosphere of the mother of Parliaments, so he did the next best thing and introduced in the House of Lords an amendment that went as far towards the Opposition position as he was allowed to go. That is why the Government amendments use the phrase "chief social work officer" rather than "director of social work" as our amendments suggest.
We welcome the move in our direction, but it does not go far enough. We are still worried that the change of title may mean a weakening or undermining of the existing role of directors of social work. "What's in a name?" some might ask. If there is to be a statutory requirement that local authorities appoint chief social work officers, why can they not be required to appoint directors of social work?
Is there any significance behind the difference between the forms of words? Does the change of name reflect any loss of status or power? Is a chief social work officer guaranteed to continue to be the reporting accountable manager to the elected council for the management and delivery of social work services, as a director of social work is now? We want to hear from the Minister whether that is guaranteed to continue. The House deserves an answer to that specific question.
Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that he will issue directions to the new authorities that chief social work officers are to continue as the reporting accountable managers to elected councils? Will he put on the record, in Hansard, the fact that the Government expect the new chief social work officers to be afforded the same rights, protection and support enjoyed by the current directors of social work, and will he say whether the chief social work officers will continue as direct advisers to the elected councils? Or will the Government allow them to be submerged in more generalist corporate management structures? Finally, will chief social work officers have responsibility for the management of all of the resources allocated to the social work services, including management responsibility for staffing and financial resources within, of course, the policy framework set by elected councillors?
We need positive answers to all those questions and, if answers are not forthcoming, I ask the House to support the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends. Ministers will try to tell us that the maximum freedom and flexibility will be available if the new authorities are left to manage their own affairs. They will tell us that the status, power and place of the chief social work officers within authorities' management structures are matters for those authorities, and that Parliament or statute should not require authorities to meet certain criteria.
Many of us would find that line of argument easier to take from the Government if they were not, at the same time, taking control of water and sewerage services away from elected local authorities in Scotland, if they were not abolishing every elected regional and district council in Scotland, and if they were not imposing upon Scottish local government a new structure which virtually no one in the country wants or desires. In short, if the Government were not murdering democratic local government in Scotland, we might believe that they were serious about granting to Scottish local government the maximum freedom and flexibility.
This is no small matter. It is not just a disagreement over the wording, because there are differences which divide the House tonight. For example, in my own area of Tayside, the social work department has developed a comprehensive and integrated structure of social work services. Like everywhere else in Scotland, that department has developed services under the umbrella and leadership of the regional councils. Now the Government propose that the regional councils, and with them the existing social work departments, are to be swept away, and replaced with a network of new and much smaller unitary authorities.
In Tayside's case the successor authorities are likely to be controlled by different political parties. I do not think that anyone would disagree with me if I suggested that the new Dundee unitary authority is likely to be controlled by the Labour party, or that the new Angus authority is likely to be under the control of the Scottish National party. At one time, we could have said that the Perth and Kinross authority would be an obvious one for Tory control, but these days, that kind of remark cannot be made of anywhere in Scotland.
Nevertheless, Ministers say that those different councils—which may be controlled by three political groups—will be able to come together to ensure the continuity of policy and provision in the field of social work. They say that the chief social work officers from


each authority will simply have to liaise with each other to avoid any disruption of the services which were previously available under Tayside. That depends on the status, power and place given to each of those social work officers by the respective authorities.
One council may well give to the social work officer a role equivalent to the director of social work today. Another council might not, and the social work officer might be seen as a relatively minor official within a more corporate management structure. Under those circumstances, how can effective liaison take place between different chief social work officers? For liaison to be effective, social work officers in every authority must have the same status, power and place.
There is also the question whether the chief social work officers will be sufficiently senior to withstand politically inspired pressure from councillors. I shall again take a recent example from my area. A proposal was made by Dundee health care trust to place a small number of patients in a community home in Carnoustie. The proposal caused something of a furore, and led to a public meeting in Carnoustie attended by more than 200 people who were alarmed at the prospect of patients suffering from mental illness being placed in their midst.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was there, but certainly the local SNP councillor, a Mr. Lamont—I do not know if he is a relation to the former Chancellor—was there. Following the meeting, he wrote to the local newspaper in the Dundee and Tayside area criticising the trust for proposing to put mentally ill patients into the community.
He warned everyone at the meeting about the murders that have been committed by psychiatric patients who have been released into the community. He also pointed out that, because of the continuing depopulation of Dundee, there were about 6,000 vacant council housing units available, 60 of which are detached. For the £105,000 which was to be paid for the Carnoustie project, Councillor Lamont said that the trust could have bought three council houses in Dundee for each of the four patients, providing much-needed revenue for the local authority in Dundee. The attitude of the SNP councillor in that area is best summed up by the term NIMBY—not in my back yard.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman has a problem when he intervenes in Angus affairs. He betrays a total ignorance of the position. The events also illustrate the trust's lack of consultation of the local population. If the trust had made known its plans locally, it would have been a different story. The meeting was set up simply because the people felt that the proposals were being thrust upon them without consultation. There should be consultation to ensure that such projects fit in with the wishes of the local population and are not forced on them without their consent.

Mr. McAllion: I know that the local Member of Parliament backs the SNP councillor against the trust and opposes the proposal to put the patients into the community. The case sums up the problems that chief social work officers will face. The argument made by the SNP councillor was repeated in the columns of The Evening Telegraph. Anyone can vouch for that. I am not making it up, but am using what he said. His argument

was that people did not want the patients in their area. They wanted to dump them in the area of another local authority.
Dundee has 6,000 empty houses, but it also has a council house waiting list because the houses are empty because no one wants them. They are in what are euphemistically called areas of low demand. Such areas are characterised by problems of crime and vandalism. I suggest that that is the last place that a home for people suffering from mental illness should be located.

Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is making a great case for building into the local government structure a director of social work and housing? Is that not the current position, given the choice that councils will have? I believe that social work and housing go together.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman got it half right. I am making a great case for creating a director of social work. If the hon. Gentleman reads our amendments, he will see that that is what they say.
The case in Angus sums up the problems that will face professional officers in the new unitary authorities. Political pressure from politicians who are in turn subjected to pressure from people in their wards and constituencies sometimes has to be resisted in the interests of good social work care. That is why the chief social work officers in the new authorities must have sufficient seniority and clout within the authority and their department to resist the pressures put on them by councillors. That is why it is essential for the Minister to clarify the role and the standing of the new chief social work officers that he proposes. It is also why, if he is unable to do that satisfactorily, the House should support the Labour amendments, which will ensure the standing and status of the professional officers responsible for social work in the new authority areas.
We are not making a party political point. The point has wide support across the political spectrum. Indeed, when the matter was debated in the other place, Baroness Faithfull, who takes the Conservative Whip—[Interruption.] Not Marianne Faithfull, Baroness Faithfull.

Mr. George Galloway: She also takes the whip.

Mr. McAllion: I cannot speak for Marianne Faithfull, but Baroness Faithfull has wide experience of social work services in England. Among other things, she was a council member of the National Institute for Social Work, she was vice-president of Barnardo's and an honourary member of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. She said in a debate in the other place:
If we do not have social work committees or directors of social services, I suggest that the service will deteriorate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1994; Vol.556, c. 2011.]
She warned of vague accountability, lack of direction, neglect of standards and fragmentation of the service. She spoke from a lifetime of experience and from the position of taking the Tory Whip in the House of Lords.
Such a voice of experience should be listened to. It is certainly listened to by Opposition Members and it should be listened to by Conservative Members. I look forward to the Government explaining their position.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: This tawdry Bill, which has all the elegance and appeal of a piece of jewellery bought from one of Mr. Ratner's shops, will harm many disadvantaged people throughout Scotland, particularly with regard to floated plans for social work. So I have a number of questions to ask the Minister.
Traditionally, prescribed social work qualifications meant QSWs, or qualifications in social work—that is the basic qualification—and we then talked about CQSWs, or certificates in social work. There are also diplomas and degrees in social work. When he responds, will the Minister spell out what is meant by prescribed social work qualifications? Do they include those to which I have just referred? I know of one local authority chief executive who expressed the view that an administrative officer could carry out the work of a social work manager. That was before the amendment was tabled in the other place, but such a response shows how some local authorities may respond to the Bill.
I have a little experience of social work, and believe that the new authorities will need to establish social work departments and committees, and directors of social work. The nondescript outfit opposite may wish to talk about chief social work officers with prescribed social work qualifications, but I genuinely believe that many of the new authorities will recruit, select and appoint directors of social work. It is important for the many disadvantaged people whose interests and needs are cared for by social workers, area teams and hospital social work departments that we have social work directors.
One element of a social work director's role is that of advocacy in relation to the needs and interests of many disadvantaged people. Those may include disabled people, people with learning disabilities and elderly people placed in residential homes, some of which are not fit to be used as Army barracks for young soldiers. I would close down some residential homes tomorrow, including one in my constituency. But that is another matter. Most sensible councillors will opt for the appointment of directors of social work.
May I ask the Minister some questions about social work? First, will he assure the House that the chief social work officer will perform the same role and duties as are performed at present by social work directors? I refer specifically to section 6 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. My questions have been prompted by a deeply disturbing statement made by the Minister in another place, where he said:
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that in moving the amendment I said that the chief social work officer will be responsible for the oversight of all the social work services provided or purchased by the local authority.
We are in dangerous waters when we talk about the "purchase" of social work facilities and resources. He went on to say:
Undoubtedly there will be a staff for which he is responsible but I do not wish to suggest that every single service would necessarily be provided by that staff. Services may be purchased in, as is frequently done at present."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1994; Vol. 558, c. 259.]
I am not so sure that purchasing social work resources is good practice.
I remind hon. Members that the theme of the 1968 Act was, and is, the promotion of social welfare and health. I am worried about the attitude of the Government. For

example, I ask the Minister, in relation to the role and functions of a chief social work officer, how stands the principle contained in the statement in section 3(7) of the 1968 Act, that
A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the director of social work in the performance of his functions"?
Is he satisfied that his legislation is equal, or superior, to that stated in section 3(7) of the 1968 Act?
With regard to section 3(3) of the 1968 Act, what role will the Secretary of State play in the approval of the appointment of chief social work officers? I seem to have lost the attention of the Minister, so I shall repeat the question. In terms of section 3(3) of the 1968 Act, where stands the Secretary of State for Scotland in terms of the appointment of a chief social work officer? Will the Secretary of State continue to have the power of sanction that is contained in section 3(3)?
Section 3(5) states:
The director of social work shall hold his office during the pleasure of the local authority, but he shall not be removed therefrom, or be required to resign as an alternative thereto, except by a resolution of that authority passed by not less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the authority.
Will the Minister confirm that that will hold in regard to the so-called chief social work officer?
In relation to subsection (4), about the functions of a local authority, will the Minister confirm that what he proposes in the legislation is equal, or superior, to what is contained in that subsection? I ask him to give the House an assurance that a chief social work officer will have the same role, the same duties and the same autonomy, in relation to that important role of advocacy of the needs and interests of disadvantaged people.
Let me give a couple of examples. I say to the Minister that I am worried about the role of the welfare rights officers. They play an important role in the lives of many hundreds, even thousands, of people in Strathclyde region. I cannot speak for other regions, but I know that the three welfare rights officers employed in the Inverclyde division of Strathclyde regional council's social work department play an important role in the lives of ordinary people—people whose lives are heavily scarred by poverty.
One example of the work of welfare rights officers is that of advocacy, representing people at social security appeals tribunals, at medical appeals tribunals, and similar functions. Many constituents have told me that they would not have the nerve—the confidence—to appear before an appeals tribunal without the comforting, highly professional presence of a welfare rights officer.

Ms Rachel Squire: I very much want to endorse the arguments that my hon. Friend is making, and to provide the House with the information that, in Fife, the rights office in Dunfermline—the equivalent of the welfare rights officers in Strathclyde—has experienced a 42 per cent. increase in its work load in just the past 12 months. Therefore, I very much endorse what my hon. Friend has said.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because, quite apart from its value, it gave me a breather.


About 50 welfare rights officers are employed in Strathclyde and they have brought a measure of comfort to many poor people. At a recent surgery, a man told me that, with the help of a welfare rights officer, he had won £9,000 from the Department of Social Security. "Won" is the right word because it was a hell of a struggle. For that man, it was like a small win on the pools because it gave him some comfort in a sparse existence.
A woman constituent told me that, with the help of welfare rights officers, she was paid money that she should have received over a period of 11 years. Conservative administrations are a vanishing phenomenon, but some of those that remain may see welfare rights officers and members of area social work teams as agitators or troublemakers, but those people fulfil an important role.
Too many Conservative Members see social workers as the lady almoners of yesteryear. The legislation is taking Scotland down the poll tax road because we are to be used as an experimental laboratory. If we must have the new authorities, the social work departments must be adequately staffed and resourced. We shall need social work committees, and to protect the interests of the many poor and disadvantaged people, there must be a director of social work with prescribed social work qualifications. The Government have made a concession, but it does not go far enough for many of our constituents.

Mr. Dalyell: What response has the Minister given to the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations in relation to its concerns about special needs groups?

Mr. Welsh: The Government appear to have bowed to pressure to reinstate social work to its statutory and deserved place in local government services, but it is still to be downgraded in status because statutory directors of social work are to become chief social work officers and the previous statutory social work committees are to be consigned to history.
The Government's attitude to education and social work is wrong because their proposals sweep aside historical reality and the contribution of the statutory directors and their committees, and they also ignore the social and educational reality that led to their creation.
Social work departments have to deal with the daily reality of poverty and unemployment and all the other inbuilt problems of Scottish society. The Lords amendment chooses to ignore the long-standing status and priority given to education and social work in our society. I support the amendments to the amendment because they at least try to restore some of that recognition, but the Government will again summon their absent battalions to force through their views in the face of opposition and advice from Scotland, because that is how the system here works.
In another place, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said:
We have always recognised the vital contribution which social work services make in our community. Vulnerable groups depend on community care, and child care services can be reassured about the continuity of the service."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1994; Vol. 558, c. 254.]
That is what the noble Lord said, but people in those services cannot be assured about the status of that service and the statutory provision for it. In many ways, we are up against double standards. I agree with what Lord Fraser says, but not with what the Government have done about it. There was no reason why they should not have ensured

the continuing high standing and status within the new system of social work and education by ensuring statutory directors and the continuation of statutory committees.
I should like to ask the Minister a few specific questions to which I hope he will respond. In the amendment, the Government have gone some way towards meeting concerns about chief social work officers, so why have they not taken it to its logical conclusion and retained in the legislation the term "director of social work"? Why did they not take that extra step, which would have ensured the standing, status and continuity of the post of director of social work?
What assurances can the Minister give to many voluntary organisations which lobbied so extensively throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, to meet the real concern that the change of title may signal a reduction or diminution in the status and authority of the chief social work officer? Will the Minister give a straightforward guarantee that that will not be the case and that the new title will bring with it all that the old title had? We are entitled to ask why there was a change in title. Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that there will be no diminution in status with the Government proposal?
If it is not the Government's intention to retain the title of director of social work, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the Government expect the new unitary authorities to bestow upon the new chief social work officers the same rights and responsibilities as the existing directors of social work? I suspect not, and that is at the heart of the concerns expressed about the Government's proposal.
Will the Minister clarify that the chief social work officer will continue to be the person who acts as the direct adviser to the council in the context of the council's wider strategic role and responsibilities, along similar lines to existing directors of social work?
Given that there cannot be responsibility for standards without an equal control of resources, will the Minister make it clear that the chief social work officer will have responsibility for the management of all resources that are directly delivered or purchased? Does he accept that that management responsibility must cover all staffing resources if councils are to discharge the social work duties and responsibilities envisaged for them?
Scotland's social work system does not need a watered-down version of the present provision; it needs a very much strengthened, well resourced and supported continuation of the present system if it is to work properly and meet the needs of local populations. That is what we need, but it does not seem to be what the Government are delivering. Will the Minister address the specific questions that I have asked regarding the standard, status and powers that he envisages for the new term and the new officer?

Mr. Wallace: The fact that the Government felt obliged to introduce the clause in the House of Lords showed that they had got it wrong when they first published the Bill and argued it through the House. I regret that they have not gone further and made provision for a director of education as chief education officer, but I might be out of order if I proceeded too far down that line; suffice it to keep to social work.
As the Minister of State, Lord Fraser, said in another place, the Government had set out compelling reasons why a director of social work or a chief social work


officer was necessary. It is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are dealing not simply with administrative arrangements for the delivery of social work services but with issues ranging from children to frail elderly people. Social workers deal with human beings and issues affecting civil liberties. I know only too well from my constituency work load how directly social workers can interfere in the lives of citizens. It is important, therefore, that those who discharge the functions, and the person in charge of them, are properly professionally qualified.
I cannot understand why the Government do not go the whole way and call them directors of social work—the only possible reason for their not doing so is loss of face—and Lord Fraser said that many authorities would choose to do just that. He also said that other authorities may have a different structure, but would still be required to appoint a professionally qualified chief social work officer who would have overall responsibility for the services provided or purchased by the local authority.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he sees any difference between what a director of social work and what a chief social work officer would deliver. If there is no real difference, the Government should be prepared to swallow their pride, accept the Opposition amendment and call them directors of social work. In many people's eyes, that is precisely what they are.

Mr. McAvoy: I shall be extremely brief. As one of several hon. Members who are former members of Strathclyde regional council's social work committee, I could not let the amendment pass without referring to the effect of the Bill and the amendment on the council's operations.
Strathclyde's social work department has a record that is second to none, both in the existing statutory services that it provides and in the innovations that it introduces. Reference has been made to welfare rights officers. Strathclyde, under a director of social work, pursued that policy within the region and helped many people. There have also been initiatives for disabled people, such as the disabled olympics—a great innovative gesture by Strathclyde under the direction of a director of social work working in league with councillors. The range of policies, initiatives and services implemented by a director of social work shows that the system works and that the Government are making a mess of the changes.
Mention was made earlier of the pressures on directors of social work. Who knows what the pressures would be on someone called a chief social worker. I remember the pressure on Dr. Fred Edwards, the director of social work at Strathclyde when the region courageously made payments to striking miners who were suffering great hardship. The director did so in conjunction with councillors. It was a perfect example of a caring council looking after its own people.
If the Government's new system is to work, it is essential that there is someone with the seniority, status and experience to ensure that it runs properly. The people

of Strathclyde will regret the passing of the Strathclyde regional council and the Government will pay the price in future for their efforts to destroy it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on his maiden speech from the Front Bench. He moved an extremely important amendment. It is not simply a question of the words used to describe the new official but of the status of an official who will be responsible for providing for the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society in different localities in Scotland.
Are we to have, as it states in the Lords amendment, a chief social work officer, which I understand to mean an executive officer who will have to do as he is told under all circumstances, or are we to have, as it states in our amendment, a director of social work—an official who will have a duty to initiate action to protect those who require social work care? That is a crucial point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) gave examples of important areas of social work responsibility. Ministers have heard me repeatedly refer to the need to promote mobility for elderly and disabled people in Scotland and the great value of the present integrated concessionary travel schemes, which enable elderly and disabled people to move around within the regions of Scotland. With all the new boundaries that will be established under the Bill, it will be extremely difficult to maintain the schemes for the benefit of elderly and disabled people.
I fear that if we are simply to have what the Lords amendment calls a chief social work officer, he will have to live within the physical and management structure boundaries laid down under the scheme. That means that there is no future for cross-boundary concessionary travel schemes for elderly and disabled people. At Question Time last week, the Minister confirmed to me that under this and new legislation the new local authorities will be able to provide concessionary travel schemes only for people living within their boundaries—their own electors. There will be no scope for cross-subsidisation across boundaries.
We are talking about social work, which will obviously be crucial for people in the districts around cities. If they cannot take advantage of concessionary travel across boundaries into Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee, the existing scheme will be greatly and seriously undermined.

It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Home Robertson: We have crossed the 10 o'clock boundary, but it will be a lot more difficult for elderly and disabled people to cross the boundaries in future. It is important that there should be social work directors, who will have the power to initiate policy and to make firm recommendations to their councils, and to Government where necessary, that those important areas of responsibility should be co-ordinated.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have a serious problem here, that there is a need for the co-ordination of policy in this vital area, particularly on the point of mobility for elderly and disabled people, and that we need directors of social work who will have the authority to cross those boundaries in every sense of the word. There must be serious concern that, under the Bill, even with the Lords amendments, that will not happen. I hope that the Minister will seriously address that point.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Many excellent contributions have already been made on the merits of existing social work departments, and I do not want to go over that ground again. I want to seek clarification from the Minister on the distinction between social work and education. I do not want to argue the case for education, because that would be out of order; rather, I want clarification on why the Government appear to treat education and social work differently, when debates in the House and in Committee have always taken place on the basis that the Opposition argued overwhelmingly for chief officers for education and social work, while the Government argued consistently against both.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Statutory duties are not specifically assigned to the directors of education but to the education authority; however, duties are directly imposed on social workers by statute.

Mr. Davidson: Notwithstanding that, when we argued earlier in the House and in Committee for chief officers, the Government used exactly the same arguments against chief officers for education and social work. They argued that the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of individual local authorities. Now they have changed their argument completely on only one.
That presumably means a downgrading of education vis-a-vis social work, because it is not felt sufficiently important to command a chief officer in the way that the social work departments do. Will the Minister clarify exactly why he believes that an education department does not deserve a chief officer, whereas a social work department does?

Mr. George Foulkes: I have been sitting here this evening in the growing disbelief that Parliament today, and no doubt the Queen tomorrow, will pass the Bill with or without this amendment in relation to the chief social work officer, and reorganise at great expense and great trouble local government in Scotland, when I understand that all the recommendations of the Banham committee in England

are being thrown out completely. There will be no local government reorganisation in England. I understand that Ministers are saying that they do not want it in areas such as Suffolk—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Utter rubbish.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman always talks rubbish. He spoke rubbish when he represented a Scottish constituency, and he speaks rubbish now that he represents a Southend seat.
But I have read in the paper that, in Suffolk, the Secretary of State for the Environment is opposed to the scheme that is going through. The Dorset schemes are opposed. No doubt, in the West Bromwich area, local government will not be organised—Madam Speaker acknowledges that.
I must say that I find it unbelievable, disgraceful and astonishing that the Government are pressing ahead with this expensive, unwanted reorganisation in Scotland, while things south of the border will continue as they are.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to intervene in a Scottish debate, but I really must say that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is talking absolute rubbish, and I think that the House should know that.
In England, the situation, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is that, in some areas, the Government take the view that there is a case for change. In other areas, there is no case for change. The Government, very sensibly, are taking local circumstances into account. I am sorry—as my hon. Friends will know, although I was a Member for a Scottish seat for a long time, and I tried hard not to interfere—but when I find that things are going in the wrong direction, I feel it right just to put forward one point of view.
I say to the Government that it is rather sad that their Lordships were forced to table the amendment. I am sure that the great majority of Scottish new local authorities will want to have a director of social work, because they will feel that that is appropriate. But if local councillors are talented, able and wish to serve the public, surely Ministers should accept that some local authorities might decide, with good reason, for example, that there is a case for saying that responsibility for social work and housing should be brought together, or, perhaps, that social work and education be brought together.
Some Members might say, "We would not want that, " but, quite honestly, if we are to run our local councillors by telling them all they should do and how much they should spend—taking away all their freedom—we are making a great mistake. I must say to the Ministers who are promoting the Bill that it is unfortunate—probably because of the pressure from some of the Lords who should know better—that the amendments propose restrictions.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he follows Scottish matters assiduously, albeit from Southend, but does he accept that the Bill does contain more than 150 provisions that give the Secretary of State power to tell local authorities what to do? Does he approve of that?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have tried very hard, because of the shortage of time, not to interfere and take up time in a Scottish debate. Of course Governments interfere far too


much with local councils. I would like to see far more freedom. That, sadly—whether under a Conservative Government or a Labour Government—is something that never happens, although, in fairness, our splendid Secretary of State for Scotland has been trying very hard indeed.
Politics apart—the Minister knows that I have said' this on several occasions—he is one of the most courageous, talented and independent Secretaries of State for Scotland that we have ever had. But, sadly, he is constantly under pressure from colleagues in the Government, and, more importantly, from reactionaries in the House of Lords. It is very sad that the reactionaries in the House of Lords, who want to run everything through law, are forcing him to do what he does not want to do.
If the councillors and the voters wish it, what on earth is wrong with having one or two councils who take the view that the responsibilities for social work and housing be brought together? In England, where there are many Conservative councils, and where the House of Lords does not seem to have the same influence, we do have some flexibility—for example, in local government. They do not want changes in some areas, but Essex will allow change, and Southend, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, will shortly become an independent borough running its own affairs—unfortunately, not outside the EEC, but at least it will be independent.
It is very sad that the Government have been forced by the House of Lords to table their limited amendment. How much better it would be if we left it to local authorities to decide what is right for their areas, and not force them all to go on one particular track.

Mr. Galloway: The speech of the right hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was breathtaking in its audacity. He asked us to compare the situation in England, where, in some instances, a case had been made for change, or in some instances for no change. He asked us to give credit to the Government for taking cognisance of the local views in those circumstances. The point being made by the massed ranks of the Opposition in Scotland is that there is no case for local government reorganisation in Scotland, by any test of opinion—local government elections, by-elections, parliamentary elections or opinion polls.
According to all those tests, the people of Scotland have spoken in overwhelming numbers against the change that the Government are ramming down their throats. The Government are saying that Northern Ireland can have devolution and an assembly, but that Scotland cannot have those things. The implication is that those who bomb and shoot their way towards devolution can have it, but that those who pursue democratic means and gather the support of 74 per cent. of the electorate are simply and cynically denied.
The amendment seeks to rescue something for the Government from this mess, and to do justice at least to the most vital area of local government work—social work, which takes place among the weakest and most

vulnerable people, who depend most on us and the country's political structures. I ask the House to accept the amendment, for decency's sake.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made some perceptive points. As I intend to show, we are doing much that he has asked of us.
I repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the chief social work officer will be a minor official. He or she will be nothing of the sort: the person concerned will have to make decisions affecting life and liberty, such as the decision to remove children to places of safety. He or she may have to make recommendations for the assumption of parental rights in respect of children in care, recommendations for adoption and fostering and supervision arrangements for people who are a danger to others. He or she may be involved in services in the criminal justice system and recommendations for sentencing.
I can confirm to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 12 will require every authority to appoint a chief social work officer who is professionally qualified. The qualifications of directors were updated by statutory instrument in March 1993: they include a diploma in social work, a certificate of qualification in social work, the certificate of social services and other qualifications. Those will be the qualifications prescribed for chief social work officers. The statutory duties of such officers will be the same as those for directors of social work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about welfare rights officers. Local authorities can continue to employ them, but not all are employed by social work departments. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Scottish Office would be involved in appointments of chief social work officers; the answer is no.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations. We have made clear the contribution of the voluntary sector to social work, and we recognise its concerns about the transitional period. We therefore intend to require existing councils to pass on to the new councils information about the funds they provide for the voluntary sector, and we are continuing discussions with the SCVO about continued support.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Secretary of State will not in any way involve himself, or herself, in the appointment of a chief social work officer? That would directly contravene section 3(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which gives the Secretary of State the power to refuse to accept the appointment of a social work director. Will the Minister assure us that the Scottish Office will not interfere in the selection and appointment of officers?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the local authority will make the appointment. If it is discovered that, for instance, someone has committed the offence of child abuse and been to prison, of course that person will not be suitable. I shall examine the detailed point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but my understanding is that the discretion will be that of the local


authority concerned, and that the Scottish Office will not interfere unless a substantial issue of public interest is involved.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the passing on of information from one council to another in any way guarantee that the level of funding for special needs groups about which the voluntary organisations are concerned will be sustained?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The duties all remain intact under statute as they have in the past. I believe that councils will be responsible. There may be changing priorities and that is the position now. However, it is vital that the necessary information is passed on and that will happen.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Mc:Allion) asked about guidance. Chief social work officers will have oversight over all social work services provided or purchased by the local authority. We will consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work in considering what further guidance is required.
The effect of the Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No.12 and the associated group of amendments would be to remove from local authorities the flexibility which they seek and which we wish them to have. We reached the decision on social workers for the simple reason that I gave earlier, which is that social work decisions can affect personal lives and liberties to an extent that other local authority services generally do not.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me develop this line of argument.
The main amendment is a new clause that will require every authority to appoint a professionally qualified chief social work officer. We do not wish to confine the managerial arrangements of local authorities by saying that that person must necessarily be a director.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East pointed out, a chief social work officer need not necessarily be the director of a department. If, for example, an authority had a single department for housing and social work or for education and social work, the director of that department would not necessarily be the chief social work officer.
No doubt most authorities will have social work departments led by professionally qualified directors. Other authorities may decide on a different structure. They will be required to appoint the professionally qualified social work officer at an appropriate level in their organisation, and he or she will be responsible, as I have said, for oversight of all services concerned.
A series of consequential amendments makes clear the specific decisions and tasks for which the chief social work officer will be responsible. I believe that this amendment meets the concerns that have been expressed,

while giving the new authorities as much flexibility as possible in determining their own internal structures and management arrangements.

Mr. Welsh: The Minister said that this would give local authorities the flexibility that they seek. Can he name the local authorities that wish to abolish the statutory director of social work?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I can. There are a considerable number of authorities. A total of 15 were in favour of a statutory director and 37 authorities were against—three of them were regions, two were islands and 32 were districts. Many other bodies were also against a statutory director. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the president of the Association of Directors of Social Work welcomes this amendment, and that the British Association of Social Workers welcomes it as a sensible compromise. I strongly commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out
'Chief social work officer.'
and insert
'Director of social work.'
—[McAllion.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 286.

Division No. 322]
[22.19 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Adams, Mrs Irene
Chidgey, David


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Church, Judith


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Alton, David
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


(Ros'dale)
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Connarty, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Corston, Jean


Bell, Stuart
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam


Berry, Roger
Darling, Alistair


Betts, Clive
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Denham, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Callaghan, Jim
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Enright, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Etherington, Bill






Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maddock, Diana


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mandelson, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foulkes, George
Maxton, John


Fraser, John
McAllion, John


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galbraith, Sam
McCartney, Ian


Galloway, George
McFall, John


George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Gerrard, Neil
McLeish, Henry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McMaster, Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McNamara, Kevin


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Michael, Alun


Graham, Thomas
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gunnell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hodge, Margaret
O'Hara, Edward


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
Olner, William


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Reid, Dr John


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Maclennan, Robert
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stott, Roger





Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Wise, Audrey


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. John Cummings and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Dennis Turner




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Bates, Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Sir Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry






Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Wavenney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, Davie (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwick N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waterson, Nigel


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wells, Bowen


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John





Widdecombe, Ann
Wolfson, Mark


Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
De. Liam Fox

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 64

GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF NEW AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 56, line 33, leave out ("sewerage services") and insert
("facilities for the disposal of sewage")

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24, 29, 56, 57, 92 to 104 and 121.

Mr. McAllion: I shall speak to Lords amendment No. 29, which seeks to introduce after clause 179 a new clause which would let the present regional and island councils use the new provisions in the Bill to facilitate the use in respect of their water and sewerage functions of what is called the Government's private finance initiative. [Interruption.]
The private finance initiative involves what are known as BOO schemes. BOO stands for " build, own, operate". That means that private companies are introduced to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough chatting in the House. I am finding great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The House will now settle down.

Mr. McAllion: Some people have no respect for the Standing Orders of the House.
BOO schemes are where private companies are allowed to build, own and operate facilities which are essentially public facilities, and they are of course a matter of some controversy. There is the specific dispute over whether BOO schemes will lead to higher or lower prices for water consumers in Scotland. Last Wednesday, the Minister responsible for local government attacked Strathclyde regional council for making "alarmist claims" about the impact of BOO schemes on the price of water in Scotland.
The Minister argued that BOO schemes would be better for the consumer and denied the claims by the regional council that they would result in higher charges for Scottish consumers. At the weekend, on the television programme "Scottish Lobby", the Minister said that his Department had undertaken research into the impact of BOO schemes which invalidated the claims made by Strathclyde regional council in its original press release about the BOO schemes.
Strathclyde regional councillors, as might have been expected, have reacted to the Minister's attacks, and they have provided me and other hon. Members—and, I suspect, Ministers as well—with an information note which responds to the Minister's attacks. The councillors have given a detailed breakdown of their assessment of what the impact of the schemes will be on the price of water in Scotland. Their assessment is that the impact will be wholly damaging to the consumers of Scottish water, and they suggest that BOO schemes will be twice as expensive as schemes where ownership remains in the control of regional councils, as they are at present, or public water authorities, as could happen in the future.
Strathclyde's case is open to scrutiny by all hon. Members, who can look at the detailed costings provided and make up their minds. Hon. Members cannot make up their minds about the claims made by the Government, because the Government have not made available to anyone outside the Scottish Office the detailed research which they claim to have carried out into the impact of the schemes on the price of water in Scotland.
It is time for the Minister to put up or shut up. He should respond to Strathclyde's case, which has been presented to him in detail, with an equivalent case of his own which goes into detail and challenges the figures given by Strathclyde. If he cannot provide that kind of detailed response, he should stop attacking the council and accept that its case is valid.
This is not just an argument about detailed financial costings and figures, because central to the Government's case is their belief that BOO schemes will, by involving the private sector, introduce competition which, in turn, will drive down the operating costs of providing water to consumers in Scotland. That case does not stand up to any scrutiny, because in England and Wales—where the Government have already introduced private ownership and competition into the supply of water and sewerage—costs have been driven up to the extent that water costs in England and Wales are now twice as much, and in some cases more than that, as in Scotland, where water remains in the public sector.
More worrying than the costs are the implications for safety and for safe standards in the supply of water and sewerage services in Scotland. How are the savings supposed to be achieved by the new private companies which come in to operate the schemes? I suggest to the Minister that the new private companies will be able to achieve those savings only by cutting corners and reducing safety standards in the delivery of vital services to Scottish consumers. That must be of concern to all hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the Minister should respond to that.
Another concern that the Opposition have is about what might happen if the private operators who come in to operate schemes then go bust. Who will be left to pick up the tab—

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seem to be going back over the old arguments that we had in Committee, when in fact we should be addressing new clause 29—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can safely leave that in the hands of the Chair.

Mr. McAllion: We are dealing with new clause 29, which deals with the private finance initiative introduced by the hon. Gentleman's own Government. If he does not understand that, we have to ask why he is sitting on the Back Benches in support of the Conservative Government.

Mr. George Robertson: He should be on the Front Bench.

Mr. McAllion: I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland pales at the very thought.
The problem with the BOO schemes is that they link together in private control three vital strands of water and sewerage services in Scotland—building, ownership and operation of the schemes. They will tie the hands of the new public authorities. The authorities will be tied into privately run schemes over which they will have little or no control. If things go badly wrong with the privately run schemes, there will be nothing much that the new public water authorities will be able to do about them, other than to intervene to bail them out and find extra public money with which to supply the services.
The debate gives us the opportunity to clarify several issues. Strathclyde regional council has made the case that the introduction of the Government's private finance initiative into the supply of water and sewerage services in Scotland is likely to lead to higher costs for the consumers of those services. The council's case remains convincing and open to examination by anyone who cares to look at it. It is certainly detailed enough to persuade me and many other hon. Members with open minds that what the council says is correct.
The Government's case remains shrouded in bluster and obfuscation, in both of which the Minister with responsibility for local government is expert. I suggest that even the lackeys on the Benches behind the Minister remain unconvinced by his bluster and obfuscation in this respect. There is now a clear opportunity for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to set the record straight and tell us the detailed research findings of his Department which justify his case. If he cannot do that, he should shut up and stop attacking Strathclyde regional council.

Mr. Salmond: As one of the more open-minded Members of the House, I want to make some observations about this group which, with respect to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), involves not just new clause 29 but a wide range of amendments on the subject of water.
I am particularly worried about amendments Nos. 17 to 23, all of which are similar in composition and all of which insert the word "former" into phrase which otherwise say:
customers or potential customers of the new water and sewerage authorities.


I want to know why the Government want to insert the word "former".
There may be an entirely innocent explanation for that insertion, but I shall make a few suggestions of the real reasons behind the amendments. If, for example, people were priced out of water services in Scotland by the sharp rises in prices that will inevitably take place following the creation of the water quangos, they would become former customers of the water quangos in Scotland.
I, too, saw what I can only describe as an unsatisfactory, indeed shifty, interview given by the Minister on that excellent programme, "Scottish Lobby", the other day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The producers and interviewers on "Scottish Lobby" will note the general assent to that description of the programme—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wish to intervene? Of course, he is a Whip, so he is not allowed to say anything.
Even on the Opposition Front Bench there is general assent for the description of "Scottish Lobby" as an excellent programme. Only this weekend it exposed the charade behind the Minister's bluster that there will not be sharp rises in water prices. The Minister looks somewhat surprised. He often looks surprised during debates. I cannot quote exactly from the programme, but as I remember it, the interview ran roughly as follows. The interviewer asked the Minister whether he had made any forecasts of the rises in water charges in Scotland. The Minister said yes, he had. The interviewer asked what they were. The Minister then said, "You surely don't expect me to tell you that."

Mr. Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister shakes his head. Will he now say what those sharp rises in cost will be? He expressed confidence that his departmental officials had researched the matter carefully, until he was asked what the rises would be. He then refused to forecast them, looked accusingly at his interviewer and said, "You surely don't expect me to tell you that." The Scottish people do expect to be told what the forecasts are.
There can be little confidence in the Government's position on this. We need think back only a couple of years to the poll tax fiasco, when the Government confidently forecast the expected price rises, and their forecasts were wrong in almost every case that came to light. On this further lunatic measure, the Government are not even prepared to make forecasts in the first place. No one who watched that interview can feel confident that the Minister has any idea of the price rises that he is letting the Scottish people in for. We are therefore entitled to be extremely suspicious about the insertion of the word "former" into the relevant clauses and I have a mind to divide the House on amendment No. 17.
10.45 pm
Another sinister reason why the word "former" might be introduced is that someone could become a former customer of the water quangos if those quangos cease to exist. The Minister again looks surprised, but he must

know that many Opposition Members see something familiar in the progression of water out of local government control into quangos and then, as happened south of the border, into the private sector. The Scottish people suspect that water quangos are merely a staging post for the Government's eventual aim of taking water into the private sector in Scotland, just as he did south of the border. If that were the Government's aim, the Bill would provide for it by describing people as "former" customers of quangos, which would then no longer exist.
I am also naturally suspicious of allowing amendments to go uncommented on when I doubt whether any hon. Member, least of all the Minister, understands them. I am interested in amendment No. 16. There seems to be a significant difference between "sewerage services", the phrase currently in the Bill, and
facilities for the disposal of sewage",
which the Government intend to put in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain exactly what the difference is.
I am also concerned about amendment No. 24, which I have now read several times with the relevant clause and find absolutely and utterly incomprehensible. The amendment and clause say:
in a case where the proposed sewer will connect with their sewers or sewage treatment works, determine (and by written notice advise the person) that all, or a part which they shall specify in the notice, of the sewer constructed shall not vest in them through the operation of section 16(1)(c) of this Act;"—
he amendment then inserts:
and shall instead vest in him"—
and the clause goes on:
but notwithstanding the determination the sewerage authority may, on such terms and conditions as they think fit, then or at some later time enter into an agreement under which the sewer, or as the case may be the part, shall vest in them.
Even in terms of complex legislation, that amendment makes an already incomprehensible clause even more incomprehensible. It might be seen as a case of them and him, but I expect the Minister to offer the House some explanation of what amendment No. 24 means.
This is a critical part of the legislative process in this House. We are a couple of days away from the end of the Session. I know that Lords amendments are not subject to a guillotine and that the Government want to progress other important legislation before the evening has ended. They also have a privilege resolution tomorrow in which some Members have expressed an interest. Nevertheless, that is no reason for allowing the ambiguous, inconsistent, and perhaps even sinister, amendments before us to be passed without opposition.
This would be the perfect opportunity for the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to show the drive and enthusiasm that he showed as recently as last December in forecasting that the Bill would be bogged down, defeated and sent into oblivion. If we had more of that guts and gumption in discussing the Lords amendments today, the Government might have an impression of the strength of feeling that undoubtedly exists in Scotland about the course of the legislation. If the Government are vulnerable at any point in the legislative process, it is now. I suggest that Opposition Members take advantage of that opportunity.

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall discuss Lords amendment No. 16, especially as it affects the House.
I have been asking the Minister about the appointment of the chairmen and chief executives of the new water boards. About three weeks ago, I received a telephone call from a person who asked me to lobby on his behalf, because he had been selected for the short list for one of the posts of chief executive. He told me that a company known as Andrew Rait Ltd., which is engineering the appointments of chairmen and the chief executives, had suggested that the posts would not be advertised.
I have checked that fact since then with some of the regions. They tell me that they are of the opinion that those posts should be advertised, but I am reliably informed by that person that they have now reached the stage at which the appointments will be made this week. How is it possible for a Government at this stage in any procedure to go down that road, and as far down that road as is, fairly obviously, the case in that instance?
I also understand that that occasion merited the presence of a person from the Scottish Office, which demonstrates how far the Scottish Office is going as far as the appointment of those chief executives is concerned. It is a major anxiety to myself and, I should imagine, to all Opposition Members, that the Tories are now doing as they are doing in terms of the appointments to those quangos.

Mr. Welsh: The Minister owes the House an explanation, and I hope that we shall hear one from him, because it is obvious that the Government's policy will force greater price increases in Scotland than would otherwise take place, purely because of the unwanted policy that he is forcing on the Scottish people.
The Minister knows the figures. In the "Scottish Lobby" programme, he said:
Yes, of course we've done research. We have a very committed team which is researching all the figures. But you can't expect me to give a specific forecast".
I think that we can expect the Minister to give a specific forecast, and we can expect him to do so tonight in the House of Commons, because we deserve an explanation of the basis of his assertion that the private finance initiative will not be more expensive. I have seen figures that show clearly that it will be, and that those costs will be borne by water consumers in Scotland.
The Government are entirely wrong in their water and sewerage proposals, and on the issue of disposal of assets and costs. Those are simply not wanted by the Scottish people. They are bad economics, and will produce a complete lack of accountability to the general public, for whom those services are meant to exist.
Those transitional arrangements, to my mind, are only nails in the coffin of an unwanted and unwarranted Tory proposal—and there is no doubt that it is a Tory proposal in its conception, its implementation and its philosophy. It is purely a Tory party political manoeuvre, and is opposed by every other political party in Scotland, and by the majority of the Scottish people. Yet it is being imposed on us.
For that reason, the proposals will not last. If the Government are intent on forcing them through against the wishes of the people, and against common sense, we have a right to expect an explanation from them about the costings—now, before those price increases hit the Scottish people.
The Minister should have nothing to hide. If he has researched those figures, he has nothing to lose by making them clear and plain to everyone, so that we can all know the truth.
On the issue of disposal of assets and costs, will the Minister make clear the basis of his assertion that private investment in public water will be cheaper than the traditional method of financing water service projects? It will not be, but the Minister must have figures to back his assertion. Why not make them public, so that we can test the truth of his statement?
The Minister tried to rubbish the Strathclyde report, but he cannot ignore the fact that other local authorities have commissioned independent reports on financing. Their figures will be available to compare with information that the Government have produced and will act on. The independent studies that I have seen clearly show that the existing finance methods are a far better bargain for Scottish water consumers.
Leaving aside the obvious point that private finance expects to make a profit from its investment, independent figures show that traditional funding is cheaper, and that the Government's proposals will mean higher prices for consumers for an essential and unavoidable daily service. Those higher prices will be imposed on the Scottish people purely because of the Government's party political dogma, and that imposition will be against the wishes of all the other political parties and the people of Scotland.
I am told that a comparison between private and traditional local government financing methods shows that local government is simply better value for money. Independent figures show that price rises over 15 years under the public sector amounted to 83 per cent. But the price rises under private financing ranged from 112 to 153 per cent. That shows substantially higher borrowing costs, and that means higher price increases for consumers.
Over a 15-year period, the public sector options that I have seen produced lower water and sewerage price increases than the private sector, even assuming efficiency savings and debt write-off. The Government are keen to write off debt when it suits private pockets, but not at all keen to write off debt if that would be in the public interest—at least not in Scotland. They are happy to write off debt in London and for English purposes.
Over a 30-year period, the public sector becomes more favourable on every comparison. The Government should make their figures public, so that we can get to the truth of the matter. The studies that I have mentioned are independent, although the Strathclyde one is not. I agree with the Strathclyde report, but we cannot ignore independent surveys that have been produced by other Scottish councils.
The Minister says that he has done his homework and knows the costs involved. Will he produce his figures for public consumption so that we can get to the truth of the matter? We are supposed to live in a democracy, and the Minister is supposed to believe in open government. He can prove that. Instead of hiding behind a veil of secrecy, let him be open and honest with the public, and print the


assumptions on which he made his claim that his proposal will produce lower bills for the consumer. If he believes that, he should put it to the test. Will he publish the Government's figures for public scrutiny? The Minister can answer that now. All he has to do is say yes.
Higher price increases are the result of Government policy, but the Minister is not prepared to admit that. If he can prove otherwise, he should do so. Consumers have a right to know, because their water service assets are being stolen from them and they will be forced to pay higher prices for the privilege, simply because of the Government's totally mistaken policy. It is not good enough. The Minister has the answer, and I hope that he will produce the figures for which I have asked.

Mr. Stewart: I shall start by speaking to the amendments that hon. Members have questioned. I have placed a memorandum on the Strathclyde study in the Library. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked about amendment No. 16. The term "sewerage services" was replaced by a fuller and more precise term in a number of places in the Bill on Report. One occurrence of the term was overlooked, and that omission has been rectified.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised various conspiracy theories about the purpose of amendments Nos. 17 to 23. I hope that I can reassure him—hope springs eternal. He asked about the purpose of the provision. It could be of use, for example, where someone has moved house to a new water and sewerage area, but wishes to pursue an outstanding difference with the authority for his old area. That is the only purpose of the amendments.

Mr. Salmond: As I noted in my remarks, there might be an entirely innocent explanation for the amendment, but the two alternative sinister explanations which I gave are equally an interpretation of that amendment.

11 pm

Mr. Stewart: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that both his conspiracy theories are precisely that: they are both completely wrong. I give him that assurance.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister giving the House an assurance that the Government will never privatise Scottish water?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear on innumerable occasions that the Government have no intention of privatising water and sewerage in this or any other Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Stewart: That could not be clearer.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised a number of general points about water. He did not say how his party in government would finance what is widely agreed to be the extra investment necessary in water and sewerage in Scotland, but we look forward to hearing from him on a future occasion.
I should like to make it clear, however, that hon. Members have perhaps misinterpreted amendment No. 29. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has been misinformed on the appointment of chief executives, as will become clear in due course.
Amendment No. 29 has a simple purpose—to allow existing councils to pursue the private finance initiative.

Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister confirm whether the posts of chief executive of the three boards in Scotland will be advertised?

Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Donohoe: When?

Mr. Stewart: Of course they will not be advertised until the Bill has received Royal Assent.
As I was saying, the purpose of amendment No. 29 is simply to allow existing regional councils to pursue the private sector initiatives under the private finance initiative BOO schemes. A number of regional councils are known to be pursuing discussions with the private sector. I have no reason to believe that that facilitating mechanism is in any way controversial, and I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Salmond: What about amendment No. 24?

Mr. Stewart: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment No. 24 and the related amendments are technical amendments, to ensure that the ownership of the sewers laid across land will be with the owner of the sewer, not the owner of the land.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister address the specific questions that I raised? Is he saying that BOO schemes will be cheaper than traditional financing methods? If so, I do not believe him. Will he make the figures public to show on what he bases the view that BOO schemes and private finance schemes will be cheaper than traditional methods? I should like to see the figures and get to the truth of the matter. He has not addressed the fundamental question about value for money for water consumers. Under the Government's scheme, they will be paying more.

Mr. Stewart: No, that is not correct. As I have told the House, I have placed a memorandum in the Library. 'The hon. Gentleman referred to the Strathclyde document that is available to hon. Members today. We shall, of course, be studying that and, if appropriate, we will respond to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65

CODES OF PRACTICE FOR NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 57, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 85.

Division No. 323]
[23.05 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Ronger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
French, Douglas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Gallie, Phil


Amess, David
Garnier, Edward


Arbuthnot, James
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Goodson-wickes, Dr Charles


Ashby, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorst, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Peter(portsmouth N)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bates, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Batiste, Spencer
Hague, William


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hannam, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hayes, Jerry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Heald, Oliver


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hendry, Charles


Bowis, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Hicks, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas(G'tham)


Bright, Sir Graham
Horam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Peter
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Cash, William
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Clappison, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coe, Sebastian
Knox, Sir David


Colvin, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Congdon, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Legg, Barry


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lightbown, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Deva, Nil Joseph
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Luff, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Maclean, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dykes, Hugh
Malone, Gerald


Elletson, Harold
Mans, Keith


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marlow, Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mates, Michael


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Merchant, Piers


Fishburn, Dudley
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Sir Michael





Nicholls, Patrick
Sykes, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M.(Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waterson, Nigel


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Willetts, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (congleton)


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spring, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr, Timothy Kirkhope and


Sweeney, Walter
Mr.Derek Conway




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hanson, David


Alton, David
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Harry
Harvey, Nick


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Home Robertson, John


Blunkett, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Chidgey, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jamieson, David


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S


Coffey, Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Corston, Jean
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Cox, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, Calum


Darling, Alistair
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davidson, Ian
Maddock, Diana


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Alice


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McFall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Miller, Andrew






Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Olner, William
Spellar, John


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr.Andrew Welsh and


Snape, Peter
Mr.Nigel Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister may have inadvertenly misled the House in his speech, and may want to take the opportunity to put it right. He said that he had placed a memorandum in the Library. In fact, since then, Strathclyde has produced a detailed refutation of the memorandum, Has another memorandum been placed in the Library since the original? I am not clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note.

Clause 66

SCOTTISH WATER AND SEWERAGE CUSTOMERS COUNCIL

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 57, line 44, after ("Potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, —

[Mr.Stewart]

The House divided:Ayes 214, Noes 70.

Division No.324]
[23.17 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'Clif)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Sir Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Faber, David





Fabricant, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forman, Nigel
Norris, Steve


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Forth, Eric
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Page, Richard


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


French, Douglas
Pawsey, James


Gallie, Phil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gillan, Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Richards, Rod


Gorst, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Peter (Porstmouth, N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hague, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hannam, Sir John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Nick
Sims, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hayes, Jerry
Speed, Sir Kieth


Heald, Oliver
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hendry, Charles
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Hicks, Robert
Spring, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Horam, John
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Stephen, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Streeter, Gary


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sweeney, Walter


Jack, Michael
Sykes, John


Jenkin, Bernar
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, John M.(Solihull)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thomason, Roy


Knapman, Roger
Thomas, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thurnham, Peter


Knox, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Tracey, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Legg, Barry
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waller, Gary


Lord, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Watts, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Whitney, Ray


Maclean, David
Whittingdale, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Widdecombe, Ann


Malone, Gerald
Willetts, David


Mans, Keith
Wilshire, David


Marland, Paul
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Marlow, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Mates, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wood, Timothy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Merchant, Piers



Mills, Iain



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)



Monro, Sir Hector







Young, Rt Hon Sir George



Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and



Mr. Michael Bates.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Macdonald, Calum


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maddock, Diana


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Mahon, Alice


Clelland, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Coffey, Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Connarty, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Corston, Jean
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Milburn, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Andrew


Darling, Alistair
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davidson, Ian
Olner, William


Dixon, Don
Patchett, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Pike, Peter L.


Dowd, Jim
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Purchase, Ken


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Salmond, Alex


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Thomas
Speller, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Turner, Dennis


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wicks, Malcolm


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Audrey


Hoon, Geoffrey
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Hutton, John



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Jamieson, David
Mr. David Chidgey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 67

FUNCTIONS OF THE CUSTOMERS COUNCIL

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 58, line 7, after ("potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 65.

Division No. 325]
[23.27 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia





Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bowis, John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Brandreth, Gyles
Jack, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Bright, Sir Graham
Jessel, Toby


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Burns, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Peter
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cash, William
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knox, Sir David


Chapman, Sydney
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clappison, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Legg, Barry


Coe, Sebastian
Lidington, David


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Congdon, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Luff, Peter


Couchman, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
MacKay, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Maclean, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Maitland, Lady Olga


Devlin, Tim
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marland, Paul


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Durant, Sir Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Merchant, Piers


Elletson, Harold
Mills, Iain


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fabricant, Michael
Norris, Steve


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fishburn, Dudley
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pawsey, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Pickles, Eric


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gallie, Phil
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gill, Christopher
Richards, Rod


Gillan, Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gorst, Sir John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hannam, Sir John
Sims, Roger


Hargreaves, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hawkins, Nick
Speed, Sir Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hayes, Jerry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heald, Oliver
Spink, Dr Robert


Hendry, Charles
Spring, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hicks, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Stephen, Michael


Horam, John
Stewart, Allan


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Streeter, Gary


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sweeney, Walter






Sykes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Willetts, David


Thomtom, Sir Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Derek Conway and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Michael Bates




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ingram, Adam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jamieson, David


Alton, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Macdonald, Calum


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maddock, Diana


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Connarty, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Corston, Jean
McMaster, Gordon


Cox, Tom
Meale, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dalyell, Tam
Milburn, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Miller, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Olner, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
Patchett, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Salmond, Alex


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Spellar, John


Hanson, David
Wallace, James


Hardy, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Harvey, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Worthington, Tony


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hoon, Geoffrey



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hutton, John
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Illsley, Eric
Mr. David Chidgey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 58, line 10, after ("potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 67.

Division No. 326]
[23.40 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)





Baldry, Tony
Hayes, Jerry


Batiste, Spencer
Heald, Oliver


Bellingham, Henry
Hendry, Charles


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Booth, Hartley
Horam, John


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Bright, Sir Graham
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burns, Simon
Knapman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Butler, Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carrington, Matthew
Knox, Sir David


Carttiss, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Cash, William
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Legg, Barry


Clappison, James
Lidington, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lightbown, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Lord, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Luff, Peter


Congdon, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew


Couchman, James
Maclean, David


Cran, James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Malone, Gerald


Day, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Marland, Paul


Devlin, Tim
Mates, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Dover, Den
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mills, Iain


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dykes, Hugh
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Elletson, Harold
Monro, Sir Hector


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Norris, Steve


Faber, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fabricant, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fishburn, Dudley
Ottaway, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Page, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pickles, Eric


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


French, Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Garnier, Edward
Richards, Rod


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Cheryl
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gorst, Sir John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hague, William
Sims, Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Speed, Sir Keith


Hawkins, Nick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hawksley, Warren
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)






Spink, Dr Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Watts, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wells, Bowen


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Temple Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thomason Roy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Derek Conway and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Michael Bates




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Illsley, Eric


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ingram, Adam


Alton, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Barnes, Harry
Jamieson, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Chidgey, David
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Loyden, Eddie


Clapham, Michael
Macdonald, Calum


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Maddock, Diana


Connarty, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cox, Tom
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
McMaster, Gordon


Darling, Alistair
Meale, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dixon, Don
Milburn, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H.
Miller, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Olner, William


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Salmond, Alex


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Spellar, John


Hanson, David
Wallace, James


Hardy, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Harvey, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Worthington, Tony


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hoon, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Hutton, John
Mr. David Rendel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 58, line 16, after ("potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 65.

Division No. 327]
[23.52 Pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
French, Douglas


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Gallie, Phil


Alexander, Richard
Garnier, Edward


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Gill, Christopher


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Gillan, Cheryl


Amess, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arbuthnot, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gorst, Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Ashby, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Baldry, Tony
Hague, William


Bates, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Batiste, Spencer
Hannam, Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Hargreaves, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawksley, Warren


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Booth, Hartley
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Hendry, Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hicks, Robert


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Bowis, John
Horam, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jenkin, Bernard


Burt, Alistair
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Peter
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Carrington, Matthew
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carttiss, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cash, William
Knapman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clappison, James
Knox, Sir David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Coe, Sebastian
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Legg, Barry


Congdon, David
Lidington, David


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Luff, Peter


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Maclean, David


Devlin, Tim
Maitland, Lady Olga


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Merchant, Piers


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain


Elletson, Harold
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Faber, David
Norris, Steve


Fabricant, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fishburn, Dudley
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pawsey, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman Rt Hon Roger
Pickles, Eric






Porter, David (Waveney)
Thomason, Roy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trotter, Neville


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Sir Keith
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stewart, Allan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Bowen Wells




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ingram, Adam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Alton, David
Jamieson, David


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Chidgey, David
Loyden, Eddie


Chisholm, Malcolm
Macdonald, Calum


Clapham, Michael
Maddock, Diana


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Connarty, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Corston, Jean
McMaster, Gordon


Cox, Tom
Meale, Alan


Cunningham Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dalyell, Tam
Milburn, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Miller, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Olner, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
Pike, Peter L.


Dowd, Jim
Purchase, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Salmond, Alex


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Thomas
Speller, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wallace, James


Hanson, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Worthington, Tony


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hutton, John
Mr. Nick Harvey and


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Andrew Welsh

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 58, line 33, after ("potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 65.

Division No. 328]
[00.03 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Forth, Eric


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alexander, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
French, Douglas


Amess, David
Gallie, Phil


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Gillan, Cheryl


Ashby, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gorst, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bates, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bellingham, Henry
Hague, William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hannam, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hayes, Jerry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Heald, Oliver


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hendry, Charles


Bowis, John
Hicks, Robert


Brandreth, Gyles
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Bright, Sir Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butler, Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Cash, William
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clappison, James
Knapman, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coe, Sebastian
Knox, Sir David


Colvin, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Congdon, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Legg, Barry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lidington, David


Couchman, James
Lightbown, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lord, Michael


Day, Stephen
Luff, Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Devlin, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew


Dover, Den
Maclean, David


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Mates, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mills, Iain


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Faber, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fabricant, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forman, Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton)






Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pickles, Eric
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Richards, Rod
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spring, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Sweeney, Walter
Dr. Liam Fox




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ingram, Adam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Alton, David
Jamieson, David


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Chidgey, David
Macdonald, Calum


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maddock, Diana


Clapham, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McMaster, Gordon


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cox, Tom
Milburn, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Miller, Andrew


Dalyell, Tam
Olner, William


Davidson, Ian
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Purchase, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H.
Rendel, David


Dowd, Jim
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spellar, John


Graham, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wallace, James


Hanson, David
Welsh, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Harvey, Nick
Wilson, Brian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wise, Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hutton, John
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Archy Kirkwood

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 58, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 61.

Division No. 329]
[00.14 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Forman, Nigel


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alexander, Richard
Forth, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Amess, David
French, Douglas


Arbuthnot, James
Gallie, Phil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Garnier, Edward


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillen, Cheryl


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baldry, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bates, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bellingham, Henry
Grylls, Sir Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hague, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Booth, Hartley
Hannam, Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hayes, Jerry


Bowis, John
Heald, Oliver


Brandreth, Gyles
Hendry, Charles


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Robert


Bright, Sir Graham
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Butler, Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Jenkin, Bernard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Clappison, James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Congdon, David
Knox, Sir David


Conway, Derek
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Couchman, James
Legg, Barry


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lightbown, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Luff, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Maclean, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maitland, Lady Olga


Elletson, Harold
Malone, Gerald


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mates, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Merchant, Piers


Faber, David
Mills, Iain


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)






Monro, Sir Hector
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sri Micheal
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Renton, Ry Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Trotter, Neville


Robathan, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan
Dr. Liam Fox and


Streeter, Gary
Mr. David Willetts




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ingram, Adam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Alton, David
Jamieson, David


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Beith, Rt Hon A.J.
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Macdonald, Calum


Chidgey, David
Maddock, Diana


Chisholm, Malcolm
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clapham, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McMaster, Gordon


Connarty, Michael
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Milburn, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Andrew


Davidson, Ian
Olner, William


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Donohoe, Brian H.
Rendel, David


Dowd, Jim
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spellar, John


Graham, Thomas
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Welsh, Andrew


Hanson, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Harvey, Nick
Wilson, Brian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wise, Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hutton, John
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Archy Kirkwood

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 100

AUTHORISATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PRIVATE SEWERS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 80, line 10, after ("Act") insert
("and shall instead vest in him")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 68.

Division No.330]
[00.26 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Faber, David


Alexander, Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (selby)
Fishburn, Dudley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gillan, Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandreth, Gyles
Hannam, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bright, Sir Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on -A)


Chappman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chappison, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Jack, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Coe, Sebastian
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Congdon, David
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cran, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knox, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Devlin, Tim
Legg, Barry


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lidington, David


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Duncan, Alan



Duncan-Smith, Iain



Dykes, Hugh



Elletson, Harold



Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)



Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)







Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (NW
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hampshire)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. David Willetts and


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Derek Conway




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Home, Robertson, John


Alton, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry
Hutton, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Illsley, Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chidgey, David
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clapham, Michael
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clelland, David
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Connarty, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Maddock, Diana


Dalyell, Tam
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McFall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Olner, William


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Purchase, Ken


Hanson, David
Rendel, David


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, George (Hamilton)





Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. John Spellar

Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 25, after clause 147, to insert the following new clause—Road works register—
In section 112 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (road works register)—

(a) in subsection (4), for the words from "of road" to "section" there shall be substituted the words "under this section of such road works authorities as he may specify";
(b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(4A) Before making any arrangements under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) any road works authority having duties under this section which he intends not to specify for the purposes of the arrangements; and
(b) any undertaker (other than a person having permission under section 109 to execute road works) having apparatus in a road for which such road works authority is responsible."; and
(c) in subsection (5), after the word—

(i) "require" there shall be inserted the word "the"; and
(ii) "authorities" there shall be inserted the words "so specified"."

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 55.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The islands councils do not wish to use a central register and regard a local register for the purposes of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 as better suited to their needs. Amendment No. 25 meets that point.
Amendment No. 55 corrects a technical inconsistency.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has told us the purpose of amendment No. 25. It arises out of correspondence that I had with him previously and an amendment moved in another place by my noble Friend Lord Mackie. The islands areas felt that there would be less bureaucracy and that it would be cheaper if they arranged their own register rather than join the central register. It is a victory for common sense and I thank the Government for responding to the representations that have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 167

STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT SERVICES COSTS

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 111, line 27, leave out from ("to") to first ("a") in line 29 and insert ("publish").

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 27.

Mr. Stewart: This amendment is acceptable to both sides of the House and to the local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 27 agreed to.

Clause 169

FUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 114, line 20, leave out from ("enactment") to end of line.

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 49, 51 to 54, 65 to 69, 73 to 86, 90, 91, 108, 109, 111, 113 to 117, 119 and 120.

Mr. Stewart: These are technical amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 29, after clause 179, insert the following new clause—Further Transitional Provisions—

(".—(1) Until 1st April 1996—
(a) section 70 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land by agreement) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there were inserted ", or
(c) there being provided by some person other than themselves a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works,";
(b) section 71 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land compulsorily) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after "enactment" there were inserted "or of there being provided, by some person other than themselves, a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works"; and
(c) section 15 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (power to acquire land) shall have effect as if, at the end of each of subsections (1) and (3), there were added "or for the purpose of there being provided, by some person other than themselves, a supply of water to the public".

(2) If the Secretary of State provides, by order under section 181(2) of this Act, that any provision of Part II of (or of Schedule 13 to) this Act which—
(a) amends section 1, 16, 21(1), 22, 23 or 48 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 or section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or

(b) adds to the said Act of 1968 a new section 3A or 16A or to section 20 of that Act a new subsection (5),
shall come into force before 1st April 1996, he may provide in the order that the section amended, or as the case may be the section or subsection added, shall until that date apply as if modified in such manner as he shall specify in the order; the modifications being such as appear to him to be requisite having regard to the fact that some other provision of that Part (or that Schedule) is not for the time being in effect.")—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 62.

Division No. 331]
[00.39 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Faber, David


Alexander, Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fishburn, Dudley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gillan, Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hague, William


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowis, John
Hannam, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Hargreves, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Nick


Bright, Sir Graham
Hawksley, Warren


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Jenkin, Bernard


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Conway, Derek
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cran, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knox, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Legg, Barry


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lightbown, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lord, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Luff, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Elletson, Harold
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maclean, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maitland, Lady Olga






Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whittingale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Sir Keith
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Simon Burns




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Macdonald, Calum


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maddock, Diana


Chidgey, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAllion, John


Clapham, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clelland, David
McFall, John


Connarty, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Cox, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Miller, Andrew


Dalyell, Tam
Olner, William


Davidson, Ian
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Purchase, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H.
Rendel, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Salmond, Alex


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spellar, John


Graham, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wicks, Malcolm


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Worthington, Tony


Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Noes:


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Jamieson, David
Mr. Jim Dowd

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 180

INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENT OF STATUTORY REFERENCES

Lords amendment No. 30 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 125, line 34, leave out
("or the director of social work")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 63.

Division No. 332]
[00.50 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elleston, Harold


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Faber, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fabricant, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorst, Sir John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Sir Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den



Duncan, Alan



Duncan-Smith, Iain



Durant, Sir Anthony



Dykes, Hugh







Knox, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Philip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Don Foster and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Andrew Welsh




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Alton, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barnes, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chidgey, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Loyden, Eddie


Clelland, David
Macdonald, Calum


Connarty, Michael
Maddock, Diana


Cox, Tom
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAllion, John


Dalyell, Tam
McAvoy, Thomas


Davidson, Ian
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Miller, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
Olner, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Purchase, Ken


Graham, Thomas
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Harvey, Nick



Hill, Keith (Streatham)



Home Robertson, John






Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wicks, Malcolm


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Wallace, James
Mr. Simon Burns

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

POWER TO REMOVE OR REDUCE CERTAIN STATUTORY BURDENS ON BUSINESSES, INDIVIDUALS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("Chapter") and insert
("section and sections 2 to 4 below")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4, 9 and 10, and Lords amendment No. 79 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), in whose names amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 79 stand, were prime movers in prompting our consideration of this whole issue. Hon. Members may recall that, during debates of the Bill in Committee and at subsequent stages, a number of my hon. Friends pressed for the Bill to include measures on the enforcement of legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and for Chingford argued persuasively that, while the Bill provided an important new means to remove or reduce burdens imposed by legislation, it lacked a means to ensure that regulations were not over-zealously or unfairly enforced. Hon. Members from both sides of the House echoed the anxiety about over-zealous enforcement.
I should make it clear that it is not the Government's intention in any way to undermine the proper enforcement of rules and regulations, and I emphasise that the provisions could not be used to do so. The powers cannot be used in situations in which that would jeopardise any necessary protection afforded by the legislation in question. The powers also cannot be exercised in a way that would prevent the taking of immediate action where that is justified, or that would require the disclosure of information contrary to the public interest; nor do we intend those provisions to apply to aspects of legislation that involve deliberate wrongdoing.
The new powers would apply to legislation affecting businesses or charities, but not to legislation the sole or main effect of which is on individuals in a personal capacity. The exercise of those powers by a Minister may be in respect of any primary legislation passed before the end of the 1993-94 Session, and any order or regulation made under such legislation.
The sheer diversity of the existing appeals can be, in itself, a problem for business. The second new clause therefore provides that the Secretary of State may prescribe by order a model standard appeal mechanism. The new clause sets out several key elements that the model provisions would include. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State is to draw up the provisions in such a way as will secure that appeals can be determined without unnecessary delay, and that costs and expenses that will be incurred by the parties are kept to a minimum. The

model appeal mechanism would be available to be incorporated into future legislation as appropriate, either with or without variations.
I leave it to my hon. Friends to speak to the amendments that appear in their names before responding to the issues that they raise but, in concluding my remarks, I emphasise that it is important for businesses to be able to clarify the status of, to understand the reasons for, and to be able to challenge, decisions at as early a stage as possible. The provisions provide that important means of ensuring that they can.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: In moving the group of amendments, the Minister and the Government showed how ill-prepared they were. In some ways, I feel sorry for the new Minister. Let me be the first to congratulate him on his elevation—and to commiserate with his predecessor, who put in a great many hours of hard work on the Bill, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We look forward to hearing from the Minister's predecessor as soon as possible, and we wish him every success in the direction in which he is going now.
As for the group of amendments before us, it is ridiculous that the House, at 1.12 in the morning, is being asked to consider a major amendment to the existing enforcement procedures.
Nothing better typifies how ridiculous and shambolic the Government's treatment of deregulation is than the fact that in the amendments are recommendations of the local government enforcement scrutiny team, which were published as recently as September this year, in a report that was sent out for consultation. The consultation period covered by the amendments on which we are being asked to vote does not expire until 20 January 1995. This is a panic measure, if ever there was one.
The Government have asked the people who will be responsible for a key measure of enforcement—the trading standards officers—to give their opinions on it. Unfortunately, trading standards officers, like many other enforcement groups such as environmental health officers and even the police, have not had the chance to respond in the consultation period that the Minister's predecessor and the President of the Board of Trade set. Therefore, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, representing more than 1,500 trading standards officers in the country, has not had a chance to respond to the document.
Trading standards officers are saying individually to the Minister that any procedure of the suggested type would place yet a further burden on them—on local authority enforcement that is already overstretched by the additional legislation that the Government have introduced, governing food safety and other matters. That has been done without a concomitant increase in the number of trading standards officers.
1.15 am
Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 79 have been tabled by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to advise me outside the House that he intended to table such amendments, but I do not think that he made it clear to me that his proposal, especially as it is contained in amendment (b), was designed specifically to allow people against whom trading standards officers were acting to


intimate that they intended to appeal to a magistrate or justice of the peace. The amendment would allow such people to ignore enforcement while they were waiting for the appeal to reach the court.
The problem with that part of the amendment can be shown by the example of a builder who illegally starts to demolish a listed building and is ordered by planning enforcement officers to halt the demolition. By lodging an appeal he would be able to continue the demolition until magistrates had heard the case. That shows why we cannot accept the amendments.
In another place the noble Lord Ferrers voiced concern about how an appeals procedure might be conducted. The appeals procedure being considered by their lordships was informal and outside the judicial system. Just a few weeks ago that Minister in the other place was proposing such a new system, but a Conservative Back Bencher, with the support of the Minister, this morning tabled an amendment that would circumvent the current judicial system.
Why did the Minister feel the need to encourage this last-minute amendment when in the other place Lord Ferrers was proposing an appeals procedure that would be outside the judicial system? I note that, in moving the amendment, the Minister did not deal with that but said that his Back-Bench colleague might touch on it. The amendment would ensure that some people had a pre-eminent right of appeal.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: In the interests of saving time, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to agree to amendments (a) and (b). His presumption in that regard is misplaced. That may enable him to finish his speech somewhat earlier.

Mr. Griffiths: I could have reduced my speech by five minutes and saved the time of the House if the Minister had made that clear when moving the amendment. He nods his agreement. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. Member, and I wish to do so.

Mr. Griffiths: I assume from the Minister's failure to say earlier that he was unwilling to accept his hon. Friend's amendments that he is now persuaded that they are unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will not waste more of the House's time by failing to say what is acceptable in the other 11 key issues that we intend to pursue and vote on.
Concern has been voiced to me—I hope that the Minister had a similar briefing—by the Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards, LACOTS, which the Department of Trade and Industry helps to fund. It co-ordinates the views of local authorities on trading standards, and it is disappointed that it has not been specifically consulted on amendments Nos. 9 and 10. It wants to ensure the transparency in decision making that some of the amendments would also ensure. I have no objection whatsoever to people receiving in writing the full details of any enforcement order and the terms with which they have to comply. Although it will take up the time of local authorities, I recognise the justice in that as it ensures that there is no confusion. LACOTS, however, would have liked to have been consulted. It is concerned that if the Bill is not enacted in a practical way, it will prejudice proper enforcement and standards.
The tightening up of the matter was, of course, the subject of the Opposition Front-Bench initiative in the House of Lords where the amendments were generally welcomed.

Mr. John Sykes: I note the warm welcome that my colleagues have given me this morning. First, may I offer my hon. Friend the Minister a warm Yorkshire welcome to the Front Bench? Secondly, the English language has a famous phrase, the "Scarborough warning". Historically, the Scarborough warning means no warning at all—the blow first and the warning after.
In Scarborough, robbers were dealt with in a summary manner—by a Halifax gibbet law or lynch law. As we had no warning that the Scottish Nationalists and the Labour party in Scotland were to have such a big fall-out tonight, it is not right for me to detain my hon. Friends any later than necessary and besides, I have no wish to become the first Member of Parliament to be hanged in public since the 18th century by former colleagues in New Palace yard.
I shall, therefore, say simply that the amendments that I propose would have the effect of obliging an enforcement officer first, to state in writing the reasons for any decision that he has come to in relation to the person or business against whom he is regulating, and, secondly, to inform that person or business of any appeals procedure that may exist in relation to his decision.
No such rights exist at the moment. It should be the duty of the regulatory authority to provide such information and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider my amendment seriously.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The understandable atmosphere in the House is due to the succession of Divisions that we have had on a matter which is highly serious for those north of the border—the scrapping of what some of us regard as democracy. I wish to refer to the new clause after clause 4 or amendment No. 9, which represents an extension proposed by the other place—no doubt at the behest of the Minister—of what I consider to be a principle that is objectionable and ultimately undemocratic. On Second Reading I used the term "semi-fascist" and, for reasons that I shall explain, I do not withdraw it in respect of the new clause now before us because it follows the same pattern.
The key phrase in the new clause is:
any provision made by an enactment a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion".
The new clause under amendment No. 9, which we might call 4A or 5—as it will probably be if it is passed—removes from the House that opinion. It removes from the House the ability to change by enactment—the changing of an Act in the same way as that enactment was made—a requirement which in this case is the means of enforcement of the Act itself. That enforcement may be put in place by some statutory instrument, but it may be by the Act.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the amendment seeks to make it possible for a Minister of the Crown, irrespective of any existing Act, by placing an order under the proposed Act, on his opinion, and subject to anything else in the Act, to change the methods of enforcement.
The amendment says something more particular than that. In subsection (b) it states:


by exercising any one or more of the powers conferred by Schedule (Powers to improve enforcement procedures)"—
that is, the one and a half pages of schedule being written into the Bill by amendment No. 79—
to this Act, it would be possible, without jeopardising any necessary protection, to improve (so far as fairness, transparency and consistency are concerned) the procedures for enforcing the restriction, requirement or condition.
That provision means that there will be a whole series of subjective judgments. Who is to say whether it is possible? Even if it is, is it practical? If it is, do we do it without jeopardising any necessary protection? What is a necessary protection? What is meant by "to improve"? What is fairness? What is transparency? What is consistency? Those are all matters of subjective judgment. By passing the new clause, the House passes over its powers of enactment—lock, stock and barrel—to a Minister in Whitehall.
Those of us who believe in parliamentary democracy believe that that is a reversal of what the Government sometimes say—that is, "Bring it nearer to the people; let the people decide; let it be discussed in public." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members here tonight do not understand what they will be doing when they vote: they will be handing over our powers of enactment to Ministers in Whitehall, struggling home at night through the traffic, reading their briefs by the light of lamps and probably signing something that they scarcely understand.
Clause 4, which precedes the new clause, is bad enough, but the new clause is even worse because it strips away the protection that some people might derive from the judgment of this House by statute and puts it in the hands of a Minister.
The next new clause is introduced under amendment No. 10 and relates to provisions with respect to appeals. Of course, the Minister will not judge appeals. The amendment sets out a large number of fairly complex provisions. It provides for the Secretary of State to appoint persons to hear appeals. What sort of person will be appointed? To what supervision by a Committee of this House will he be subject? A procedure for that is included for other clauses. Will it be entirely up to the Secretary of State whom he appoints and under what rules he works?
While we might approve the extension of appeals as being superficially satisfactory, it is again a centralising, authoritarian measure that removes from elected Members powers which reside in this place and which adjudicate between the people who make the rules and the people who are protected by them. It removes the balance which should reside in Parliament, not in Whitehall. If it goes to Whitehall, it will increase the power of patronage and, therefore, the possible extension of what I have rightly called neo-fascism.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) to his new post on the Front Bench. It is no reflection on him, but I want to say how much I regret the fact that our hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is no longer in that post and replying to the debate, as he would have been were it not for the nonsense of the past few weeks.
I accept that the Government have moved a long way on our recommendations on the matter—and quite rightly, too. Any hon. Member who doubts that need only

consider the response of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to what we are doing. The Opposition do not like it, which tells us that we have moved a long way in the right direction.
1.30 am
Many small business men throughout the country have been beset by problems of over-officialdom, by constant over-imposition of regulations, by people acting beyond their brief and by the extra charges levied against them, forcing them out of business because they can no longer afford to be in business. I accept that the Government, particularly with Lords amendment No. 10, have gone some way towards rectifying that.
However, I do not believe that as yet we have found a good alternative, impartial way in which to allow business men the right of appeal against what they consider to be the result of someone acting beyond his brief. The Bill provides for the appointment of persons to hear and determine appeals, and I hope that during the next few weeks and months my hon. Friend will try hard to find a strong mechanism by which that can be done. I still recommend the judicial process—the magistrates courts. The only way in which people throughout Britain will be able to have the basic principle of the right of redress is to go down that road. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to consider the matter carefully in the future to find a way of winding it in.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the late hour, I shall speak briefly.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, my constituency neighbour, on his new appointment, and wish him well at the Dispatch Box. Naturally I am disappointed when I hear him say that he is unable to accept amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 79 standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). I congratulate them on the initiative that they have taken in bringing forward those two measures, which would have been widely welcomed by British traders and business men. They will be disappointed to know that the Government do not see fit to accept them.
In a perfect world, the enforcement of the law would be an even-handed matter and would always be within the bounds of the law as enacted in this place, but there is far too much evidence of enforcement officers acting in an intimidatory and over-officious way, exploiting the ignorance of traders and business people in order to deprive them of their rights under the law.
Too often, the enforcement officers move into a business and browbeat the traders and business people into doing things that they are statutorily under no obligation to do. Amendments (a) and (b) seek to oblige enforcement officers to state exactly the terms and conditions under which they have the right to do what it is that they propose to do. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough on tabling the amendments.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman said that enforcement officers are making business people do things that they are not statutorily obliged to do. Will he give us some examples?

Mr. Gill: Yes, I should be pleased to give the House an example. It is well known—I speak with some little experience—that, for several years, the meat industry has


been intimidated into removing wooden butchers' blocks. We now discover that all that was done in a purely intimidatory way, without the force of law and at a huge expense to the industry. Those who have removed their wooden blocks—the majority of those in the meat industry, because they were persuaded that the law was on the side of the enforcement officers—have now discovered that the law was not on the side of the enforcement officers.
When an enforcement officer goes into a business, generally, the person running that business accepts—or has accepted in the past—that that officer knows his stuff and knows what he is entitled to do within the law. I repeat that there has been far too much evidence of such officers going into businesses and acting beyond their rights under the law; that has been a great annoyance to businesses, and has severely disadvantaged the businesses in many instances.
I hope that my hon. Friend and his Department will look at the matter again, and try to ensure that the rights of the traders and business men are made as substantial as the rights of those who set out to enforce the law. I am sure that my hon. Friend will look at the problem. We must see that there is equity between those who enforce the law and those who are obliged to comply with it.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I believe that the amendment very much reflects the discussion that we had in Committee, about a general recognition that small businesses and small traders, which, of course, must comply with regulations that are necessary and agreed, should not be harried in the difficulties of their business without adequate recourse.
I believe that the Opposition's amendment has found a formula that provides for local, simple redress, or something close to it. At the moment, the Government's formula, although we do not know the details of it, effectively means that Government Departments could be clogged up with many complaints from businesses—we do not know how they will be handled—whereas it would be much better for businesses to know that they could get local recourse within the magistrates court or, as suggested in the other place, possibly in the small claims court.
It should be some simple mechanism that would enable traders to say, "We think that this is unreasonable and oppressive. We want you to justify it, and if you cannot, we should not be put in a situation where we are faced with regulations that are not justified, and which could threaten our business."
I am slightly surprised that Labour Members have not had the representations, which we and Conservative Members have obviously had, from small traders who, in the main, are prepared to accept reasonable regulations, which are required for health, hygiene and safety, and who become extremely angry at the occasional over-officiousness of officials who do not have an understanding of how businesses are run, but who can nevertheless harry small businesses, which have enormous difficulty just making ends meet.
It is important—it would be preferable if we had all-party agreement on this—that we find some simple procedure to enable businesses to ask, "Is this justified?

Is this within the law? If not, we should not be expected to comply with it. If it is, we will of course comply with it, and accept that enforcement procedures will follow."
It must be cheap, simple and effective. Unless the Minister can give us some assurances, we are left in a slightly difficult position as to how to handle the amendment. I would like to press it if those who tabled it are not prepared to do so. I am not sure that I can support what the Government are saying, because I do not think that they have explained how one can provide a simple system such as that being sought.
The Minister should acknowledge that there is real concern about the need to ensure simple redress that enables business men to run their businesses, know what the regulations are, and find a clear way of ensuring that officials are acting within their powers.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and many of my hon. Friends for the warm welcome that they gave me for my new responsibilities. I am pleased that many of my hon. Friends referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and paid credit to him for all his work in the Department in relation to the deregulation initiative.
I was surprised—astonished, in fact—to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South approach the amendments in such a negative way. In the other place, his noble Friend Lord Peston said:
The over-zealous, unfeeling and unreasonable enforcement of statutes and orders is a matter about which one feels more than irritation … I am anxious to be supportive and to give matters a fair wind."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1994; Vol. 557, c. 841-42.]
In the circumstances, it is difficult to reconcile those remarks with the remarks that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench this evening.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister should concede that, when Earl Ferrers moved his amendments in the House of Lords and my noble Friend responded, he responded to a completely different set of amendments. Earl Ferrers said that people should not have the sword of Damocles of an appeal hanging over them for months on end, and that if the appeal procedures turned out to be too costly, they simply would not be used.
The Government have now had some time to come up with an alternative programme, and such a programme has been called for by the Minister's hon. Friends, but he has not been able to offer it tonight.

Mr. Evans: I have said that the amendments that I am supporting result from the pressure imposed by many of my hon. Friends. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are somewhat misplaced.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the concern expressed by the Local Authorities Committee of Trading Standards, and suggested that that body had not been specifically consulted. Let me me make it clear that we certainly intend to consult, as appropriate, when we consider the areas of legislation to which the new power should be applied. We would certainly take into account the impact on effective enforcement at that time.
But let us not forget what the new powers do. There are five powers, the first of which is to require that when, without taking formal action, an enforcement official tells a business to take some remedial action, the business


should be entitled on request to a written statement making it clear what action is necessary and why. I should have thought that that was a fairly unobjectionable change in the law, and I am surprised that it should be resisted.
Second is a power to require enforcers, where they take immediate action against a business, to provide a statement as soon as practicable, explaining the reasons for the immediate action. That would apply where observance or compliance with the burden imposed would be likely to involve expenditure of a single amount. Again, given the mode of expression, I am surprised that it would be regarded as in any way objectionable.
The third power is a power to require enforcers to issue a business with a notice that they are minded to take enforcement action. The business would then be entitled to have its point of view heard and taken into account within a specified period before any formal action was taken.
Fourthly, a power is provided to require that, when formal action is taken, the business should be told exactly what rights, as contained in the relevant enactment, it has to appeal. In those circumstances, it is very important that businesses should be made aware of the grounds on which an appeal can be made, to whom it should be addressed, within what time scale, and whether the enforcement decision can be stayed upon appeal. Finally, a power should be provided to apply relevant provisions to third parties which had had a direct economic interest in an enforcement decision.
Expressed in that way, the powers to which I refer do not square with some of the remarks that we have heard from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible cost of increase in regulation; the impact on costs—both for enforcement authorities and for business—will be considered in a particular case in deciding whether to exercise the powers, but, as our proposals build on what is already included in enforcement practice, we see no reason to believe that they will impose undue costs on enforcement authorities where they are applied. The problems were sorted out earlier, and should benefit everyone.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested, in rather extreme language, that the proposals were objectionable, undemocratic and semi-fascist. I do not know whether it is the first time that those remarks have been uttered in the Chamber by the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt it. He suggested that a Minister must express an opinion. In fact, the provision to which he referred is extremely common; it is not as rare as he seemed to suggest. He will be aware that there is precedent for the fact that the courts have the power to intervene if the opinion expressed by a Minister is unreasonable.
Let me also reassure the hon. Gentleman that the powers do not allow Acts to be changed, as he seemed to indicate, except in one very minor respect, in respect to time limits.
The hon. Gentleman also described further complaints. General issues have emerged from the Government's analysis, which are relevant to enforcement of a wide range of legislation, and we want to tackle those issues. Given the diversity and complexity of existing mechanisms, it is not appropriate to superimpose new arrangements across the board. There is a need for flexibility to apply to any or all of the elements in a

particular case, depending on the existing arrangements in that case and where the business is experiencing difficulty.
It has been said that the new powers are too significant to be enacted by secondary legislation.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to address this matter first?
As I said earlier, the order-making powers can be used only to amend existing legislation in the limited respect of time limits within which proceedings must be brought. The powers will enable existing procedures to be supplemented where appropriate in ways clearly specified in the provisions, and we believe that the negative resolution procedure provides an appropriate degree of scrutiny of such provisions.

Mr. Spearing: I am sure that hon. Members will say that I am not given to extreme language. Do the words
any provision made by an enactment
mean what they appear to mean? I presume that the new clause 5—that is what it will be—is of the same nature as the humorous, yet not so humorous, clause 4, which does just what the Minister says. I shall enlighten him about the rather extreme remarks in a more private way afterwards if that is necessary. I hope that I am wrong about the new clause 5. I will withdraw my remarks if I am, but not in relation to the existing clause 4.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that matter.
I am aware of the concern outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) about the effect of over-zealous regulation upon businesses. They have pressed that cause with my predecessor and myself, and I pay tribute to them for that. However, in recognising that, it is important to outline why the proposals cannot be accepted by the Government.
Amendment (a) relates to the first new power, that a written explanation of suggested remedial action should be given. That power could apply when, without taking formal action, an enforcement official tells a business that it should take some remedial action. Amendment (a) would mean that, if the power were to be applied in every case, irrespective of the circumstances, where any suggestion or observation was made by an official, it would have to be accompanied by a written statement. We do not believe that that is necessary or desirable.
In many cases, it will be clear to businesses whether they are being given advice or being told of a new legal requirement, and why the action is being suggested. In those cases, it would lead to unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork to provide that they were always provided with a written explanation. Advice is given and suggestions are frequently made by enforcement officials, and it is important that businesses should be able to obtain a written explanation when they want it. That is what the Lords amendment will provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough has discussed this matter with me at length. He has argued strongly—the Government accept this—that it is important that, where the right applies, businesses should


know that they are entitled to written clarification. I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that we intend to ensure this, through appropriate publicity and guidance material.
Amendment (b) was supported by my hon Friend the Member for Ludlow and by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I have every sympathy with the hon. Members' desire to ensure that action taken against businesses should not be disproportionate. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Vinson raised the issue of proportionality in the context of these provisions. My noble Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms gave a detailed response in the other place.
The main point is that disproportionate action against business may arise for one of two reasons: either the requirements of the law may be unduly burdensome, or they may be interpreted or applied in an over-zealous or unreasonable way. Amendment (b) would cover both cases, and would provide a sweeping new power to magistrates courts. In effect, it would allow magistrates to make a clear legal requirement unenforceable because they took the view that it was
a disproportionate means of maintaining any necessary protection".
We do not believe that that change is desirable or necessary. In clause 1, we have already provided a means of changing or removing unduly burdensome legal provisions, subject to important and stringent safeguards as to consultation and detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
As my noble Friend Earl Ferrers explained, that power could also be used in appropriate cases to amend legislation so as to provide a dispensing power for particular cases. Clause 1 therefore already provides the means to deal with legislation that is disproportionate or that cannot be applied in a proportionate way, subject to appropriate parliamentary control, which the Government consider to be important.
The other case that amendment (b) would cover relates to a case in which a reasonable law has been interpreted or applied in an unreasonable way. It is not clear how the new appeal procedure would mesh with existing appeal mechanisms against enforcement action. Nor am I persuaded that magistrates courts would necessarily be the most appropriate forum for deciding such matters, as I told my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Scarborough. The term "disproportionate" can also give rise to a variety of meanings in legal terms, as I have already explained.

Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend look into the files in his offices, which I am sure will reveal a letter that I wrote to his predecessor concerning a constituent of mine who was eventually driven out of business? That all stemmed from the fact that my constituent sold three T-shirts, the total value of which amounted to £6. The trading standards officer considered that they infringed the Walt Disney copyright. Other people, however, were responsible for producing the garments that were sold by my constituent, and they were not affected by the enforcement.
My hon. Friend would agree, I think, that it is unreasonable that the eventual seller of the articles should have been the one to bear the full brunt of enforcement, rather than the wholesaler or the manufacturer, who was more culpable than my constituent.

Mr. Evans: Both the House and my hon. Friend will understand that I do not intend at this hour to be drawn into a debate about that specific case, although one of the objections to putting the matter before magistrates, as proposed in amendment (b), is that it would give rise to the very inconsistency that many businesses have complained about in dealing with the way in which the rules are enforced. That is one of my objections to amendment (b).
The provisions in the Lords amendments are important. To make the rules proportionate and reasonable, which the deregulation order-making power would help us to do, is only half the battle. We must ensure that they are also fairly and properly interpreted and applied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is asking. The provisions would help us to do that.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friends will feel able to withdraw their amendments. As I have said, we are most grateful to them for prompting us to consider these matters in the first place.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 43.

Division No. 333]
[1.54 am

AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bowden, Sir Andrew
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Sir Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger






Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spring, Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stephen, Michael


Legg, Barry
Stewart, Allan


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, David
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Richards, Rod
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Willetts, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Bowen Wells




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Chidgey, David
Meale, Alan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Miller, Andrew


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Olner, William


Clelland, David
Pike, Peter L.


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Purchase, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Rendel, David


Dixon, Don
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Speller, John


Graham, Thomas
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Welsh, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wise, Audrey


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jamieson, David
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Dennis Turner

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 17

BETTING ON SUNDAYS

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) After section 31 there shall be inserted—

"Betting workers: Sunday working

Rights of betting workers as respects Sunday working.

31A. Schedule 5A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making provision about the rights of betting workers as respects Sunday working."")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 13, 28, 37, 38 and 81 to 148.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This late group of amendments seek to rob workers in the betting industry of essential protection. The Minister seeks to imply that the only workers in the betting industry who should be covered by the provisions of the abolition of the Sunday trading legislation are those who are directly involved in the taking of bets.
Many people are employed in greyhound racing who do not directly take bets, and they will have to work on Sundays. The Minister is seeking to deprive those people of the protection that hon. Members on both sides of the House thought they had secured for them earlier in the summer. Those people include those who take the coats, work in car parks or perform other tasks on courses on Sundays.
It is quite wrong that this group of amendments should seek to limit the protection only to those people who are directly involved in the taking of bets. The amendments will rob all the other workers—the majority of workers in the industry—of protection, and will leave only a small minority of people protected. I hope that the Minister will accept that, in pressing this group, he will force us to divide the House.

Sir Peter Emery: I have just one question for the Minister. Now that we are past clause 4, can he give an undertaking that the deregulation recommendations made by the Procedure Committee, both here and in the House of Lords, will be adopted by the Government? I am fairly certain that the answer will be yes, but it would be nice to have it confirmed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not germane to what we are discussing.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has made his case for being determined to divide the House when most sensible people understand precisely the nature of the amendment. As he says, it conveys rights in certain circumstances, as agreed during the contentious passage of the Bill. I see no need to detain the House by rehearsing all the arguments again. If the hon. Gentleman is content to divide the House, so be it.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 41.

Division No. 334]
[02.29 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony






Bates, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Booth, Hartley
Legg, Barry


Boswell, Tim
Lidington, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Lightbown, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Luff, Peter


Bowis, John
MacKay, Andrew


Brandreth, Gyles
Maclean, David


Brazier, Julian
Maitland, Lady Olga


Bright, Sir Graham
Malone, Gerald


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Merchant, Piers


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burns, Simon
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Burt, Alistair
Neubert, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Cash, William
Norris, Steve


Chapman, Sydney
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coe, Sebastian
Pickles, Eric


Colvin, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Congdon, David
Richards, Rod


Conway, Derek
Robathan, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Couchman, James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Day, Stephen
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Devlin, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Den
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Duncan, Alan
Speed, Sir Keith


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Spink, Dr Robert


Elletson, Harold
Spring, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Steen, Anthony


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Stephen, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Stewart, Allan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Streeter, Gary


Fabricant, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sykes, John


Forth, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


French, Douglas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gallie, Phil
Thomason, Roy


Garnier, Edward
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gill, Christopher
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Gillan, Cheryl
Thurnham, Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Tracey, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hague, William
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Viggers, Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hawksley, Warren
Waller, Gary


Heald, Oliver
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hendry, Charles
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Watts, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Whittingdale, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Wilkinson, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Wolfson, Mark


Jessel, Toby
Wood, Timothy


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkhope, Timothy



Knapman, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Mr. David Willetts




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harvey, Nick





Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Salmond, Alex


Jamieson, David
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spearing, Nigel


Kilfoyle, Peter
Speller, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Andrew


McAllion, John
Wicks, Malcolm


McMaster, Gordon
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Miller, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Olner, William
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Dennis Turner

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 17, to insert the following new clause—Sporting events and activities on Sundays—
. The entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies shall not include any sporting event or activity.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 29.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I do not want to repeat at length the arguments that were made in the other place but, although there are welcome aspects of the clause and the amendments, anxiety has been expressed that people doing the jobs not in the betting firing line will still not have the workers' protection that was promised when the Government repealed the Shops Act 1950. People doing administrative jobs—clerks who work with bookies, catering workers, cloakroom attendants and car park attendants—can all now be required to work on Sundays, but without the protection afforded by the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
If the Sunday Trading Act had not made concessions in relation to workers who did not wish to work on Sundays, it would not have been passed by the House or the other place. Ministers promised safeguards to workers who, for conscientious family or other reasons, did not wish to be compelled to work on Sundays. There has been a breach of faith as those workers are being compelled to work on Sundays, and anxiety about that is reflected on the Opposition Benches.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 19, to insert the following new clause—Repeal of remainder of the Shops Act 1950—
. In the Shops Act 1950—

(a) Part II (conditions of employment), and
(b) section 67 (business of hairdresser or barber not to be carried on in Scotland on Sunday),
shall cease to have effect.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 40, 168 to 174 and 178.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This is another important group of amendments and it causes us a great deal of anxiety. The Sunday Trading Act, which the House passed recently, extended trading hours greatly in the retail sector. I think that the Act received Parliament's support because it responded to the requirements and needs of consumers in the 1990s and, critically, it provided a great deal of protection for retail workers, who can in law decline to work on Sunday, or, if they undertake such work, they can undertake it on grounds of their own choosing.
Within months of that legislation passing through the House, and being accepted on both sides of the House on that basis, it is wrong for the Government now to bring before the House proposals to remove the remaining controls and provisions of the Shops Act, which should not be swept away without any thought or concern for the hundreds of thousands of shop workers directly affected by them.
I should like to place on record the fact that I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. We oppose the amendments and will divide the House on them.
It is hard to see any demand or justification for the controls that the Minister proposes on weekly trading hours. Even those who have pressed for liberal Sunday retail trading are not pressing to be allowed to trade any later in the evening than is currently permitted. There is no substantial evidence of a consumer lobby seeking extended weekday trading. The Government's move towards that extension shows their blinkered and narrow ideology and not the wishes of the public or even of many people in business.
The real cost of accepting the amendments will be borne by shop workers. Many Conservative Members are worried about the impact on family life of extending Sunday trading. Such concerns apply to weekday trading too. The impact could even be greater during the week because there is only one Sunday but several weekdays when shop workers—usually women—are drawn into evening work. If the amendments are accepted, many women will be forced to work in the evening and will see less of their families—often at critical times in the development of their families.
Staff face other dangers. Violence towards retail staff is rising, and it ranges from verbal abuse to physical assault. Staff are in the firing line and often have no security. People who work late at night are often the victims of violent incidents. A survey carried out by USDAW found that more than 30 per cent. of the violent incidents that shop workers reported to it occurred after 5 o'clock in the evening—the period that the amendment seeks to force shop workers to work. It is clear that the Minister's proposal to abandon controls on late-night working would place workers under even more pressure.
Not only workers but the police would be affected. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has voiced concern about the total deregulation of

shopping hours. The Government propose to abolish some provisions of part II of the Shops Act 1950, to the detriment of shop workers and the public. The legal requirement of a half-day holiday per week for shop workers is to be abolished.
Until 1986, millions of working people who were covered by wages councils orders were entitled by law to annual holidays and holiday pay. The Wages Act 1986 abolished that for workers covered by wages councils, and now Britain's workers have no statutory entitlement to holidays or holiday pay. That is a return to pre-Victorian values, because at least in the latter years of the Victorian era people recognised the need for workers to have paid holidays. Our lack of statutory entitlement puts us out of step with our European counterparts. For all those reasons, it is important to oppose the amendments.
Likewise, we are concerned about the Government's sanction, which gives employers the ability to abolish the statutory right to rest and meal breaks. That is one of the terrible problems with such a catch-all Bill as this.
Interestingly, the very concerns that have been expressed to us by shop workers, by USDAW and by others are reflected in recent evidence published by the Department of Employment. The Employment Gazette, published last November, made it clear that management grades were increasingly having to work on Sundays on an unpaid basis.
2.30 am
The problems that have been highlighted by the police, by shop workers and by those representing them are echoed by council members of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They are concerned that the interests of public order and safety and the prevention of crime would be harmed by the removal of the requirement on shops to close. That is why a number of councils have made representations to the Minister and to the Government seeking powers to enable them at least to step in where there are problem areas, not just to grant a licence for shops to open for 24 hours, irrespective of the harm that might do the community or the costs of policing it.
In Sheffield, for instance, Ministers were told that areas where night cafes were opening were already proving a magnet for louts. Under this tranche of amendments, a council could not impose restrictions on shops that were causing a problem.
In its submission to the AMA, Newham council said that the knock-on effects of the amendments could well mean an increase in night-time crime, robbery and so on. The problem was again voiced to the AMA by the Association of Chief Police Officers; the majority of its members were concerned that unrestricted opening might place an extra demand on their stretched resources—for instance, traffic movements and other nuisances such as I have already outlined.
We are asking the Minister to justify the total deregulation of shop hours and to explain why Ministers were able to say in the spring and early summer that they would maintain safeguards and protection for shop workers who did not wish to work long hours, especially on Sunday. How can Ministers justify now seeking to remove all the protections that they were so keen to reassure their Back-Bench colleagues would be in place? Why are they now so keen to remove them?


Ministers must come clean to the House tonight and reassure hon. Members that the problems that I have mentioned will not occur. The sad truth is that they cannot assure us of that because they are interested not in the small corner shop but in the big multiple stores that have been pressing for the change in legislation and that sponsored the change in legislation earlier in the summer, spending tens of thousands of pounds on lobbyists and campaigners.
It is wrong that the Government should have deceived the House—as did those companies—into accepting changes intended to bring us into the 1990s, only now to propose that shop workers and others should be robbed of all the entitlements that have been established in the past century, taking us back to previous centuries when there were no rights and people were ruthlessly exploited.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 29.

Division No. 335]
[02.34 am

AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
French, Douglas


Amess, David
Gallie, Phil


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillen, Cheryl


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gorst, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bates, Michael
Hague, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Booth, Hartley
Harvey, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Heald, Oliver


Bowis, John
Hendry, Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jessel, Toby


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cash, William
Knapman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clappison, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coe, Sebastian
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Legg, Barry


Congdon, David
Lidington, David


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Luff, Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew


Couchman, James
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
Malone, Gerald


Devlin, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Duncan, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Elletson, Harold
Norris, Steve


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rendel, David


Forth, Eric
Richards, Rod




Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Speed, Sir Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Simon Burns



NOES


Barnes, Harry
McAllion, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Chisholm, Malcolm
Miller, Andrew


Clelland, David
Olner, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter L.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Purchase, Ken


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Salmond, Alex


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Turner, Dennis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Wise, Audrey


Jamieson, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. John Speller and


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Jim Dowd

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 24

CONTROLS ON LONDON LORRIES: REPLACEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 22, line 14, leave out from ("that") to ("the") in line 15 and insert ("doing so—
(a) will have the effect that less of a burden is imposed on")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 24.

Ms Glenda Jackson: This issue is of particular concern to all Londoners, because it deals with the Government's proposals to remove the necessity for a permit to be issued to enable lorries to travel on prescribed routes at certain hours—the London lorry ban. I should be grateful if the Minister replied to a specific question.


2.45 am
In perusing the Lords amendment, the noble Lord who responded on behalf of the Government stated that the implementation of the ban—if the necessity for a permit is indeed to be lifted by the Government—would be imposed by the police. That is in direct contradiction to what the police have said—that the imposition of such a ban would be a particularly low priority.
How will the London lorry ban, which has been of enormous benefit to all Londoners during the past 10 years, be imposed if the requirement for a permit is to be lifted from members of the Freight Transport Association? In the light of the recent royal commission report, which highlighted the pollution, both airborne and noise, caused by vehicular traffic, particularly in urban areas—and there can be few urban areas more congested than London—I find it extraordinary that the Government should be considering for a moment the relaxation of the stringent rules which currently apply, and which, for the past 10 years, have prevented lorries driving through the residential streets of London. I should be most grateful if the Minister would respond.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, when the lorry ban was brought in by the Greater London council, there was an exemption system and that 20,000 firms filled in 10 pages—that is, 200,000 sheets of paper—that 2,500 signs were put up, at a capital cost of £250,000, that the recurrent costs until the scheme is dropped are probably up to £1 million a year for the residents of London boroughs, and that when it was brought in, the number of lorries denied exemption permits amounted to four?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has it in a nutshell. Every Conservative Member would certainly want to see London protected from the unnecessary intrusion of lorries. The idea that that is somehow a prerogative of Opposition Members is bizarre, but the scheme as it exists is a particularly ludicrous piece of Stalinist nonsense inherited from the GLC. Apart from protecting the environment and preserving quite a few trees, which would, as my hon. Friend suggested, otherwise be chopped up in administering the lunatic system of paper chasing, we have made it quite clear that we intend to replace the scheme with one that has a greater accent on effective enforcement.
My answer to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is that that means that no scheme will be introduced to replace the existing scheme unless it is clear that enforcement—dealt with by police, officials dealing with the vehicle inspectorate or officials dealing with the lorry ban scheme—will be in place and available to operate on behalf of Londoners.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry to hear a distinguished former Transport Minister make such a comment, as if the number of people against whom enforcement measures were taken was a necessary sign of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the legislation. I think it important to clarify that it may well be a measure of the effectiveness of the deterrent that further action need not follow: many Londoners would agree with that.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thought that I had spoken clearly and accurately. All the information that I gave was given by the Greater London council in its dying days.

The GLC itself said that the number of lorries not covered by the exemption totalled four. I was not talking about enforcement; I was talking about what the GLC actually did.

Mr. Griffiths: I thought that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's comments was that that was an indictment of the system. Many Londoners did not want exemptions: the fact that four were actually exempt is a tribute to the system in the eyes of—I am sure—the vast majority of Londoners.
Let me tell the House why we shall not vote against the amendment. It is clear that, when the Government drafted the measure originally, it was going to open the floodgates; however, it is clear from the arguments advanced in the House of Lords that their Lordships were persuaded that there had to be the possibility of tougher sanctions, and we do not wish to oppose that view. However, let me tell everyone who lives in London, and Labour Members who have diligently pursued the matter, that we shall continue to monitor it, and will not fail to bring to the attention of Londoners and the public any failures that the Bill brings about in the regulation of heavy traffic in London, to the great benefit of the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 27

POWER TO REPEAL CERTAIN HEALTH AND SAFETY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—
("(2A) Instead of consulting such other persons as the appropriate authority considers it appropriate to consult under subsection (2) above, the authority may require the Health and Safety Commission or, as the case may be, the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland to consult such persons as it considers appropriate for the purpose of deciding how it should respond to consultation under that subsection.
(2B) Instead of consulting a person whom the appropriate authority considers it appropriate to consult under subsection (2) above, the authority may require the Health and Safety Commission or, as the case may be, the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland to consult the person for the purpose of deciding how it should respond to consultation under that subsection.
(2C) The appropriate authority may require consultation under subsection (2A) or (2B) above to be carried out in accordance with the authority's directions.")

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment deals with the health and safety matters in the Bill. It was a matter of great debate and concern—on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in the House of Lords—that drastic powers were being given to the Secretary of State to sweep away health and safety protection. It was almost at the Secretary of State's discretion, with minimal safeguards for workers who have suffered from the failure of health and safety legislation, especially the lack of inspection in recent years.
We do not think it right that health and safety matters should be deregulated in the way that the Government propose. Although, again, arguments in the other place have persuaded the Government that they were going too far, we certainly do not think that the current proposals command widespread support.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Without this amendment, the Secretary of State could not authorise the Health and


Safety Commission to carry out consultation on his behalf, and consultations already undertaken would have to be duplicated. The amendment makes consultation more flexible, and allows the Secretary of State to authorise the HSC to consult on his behalf. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 26, after clause 27, to insert the following new clause—Inspection of independent schools—
. After section 87 of the Children Act 1989 there shall be inserted—

Suspension of duty under section 87(3).

87A.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of this section if—

(a) that person already acts as an inspector for other purposes in relation to independent schools to which section 87(1) applies, and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is an appropriate person to determine whether the welfare of children provided with accommodation by such schools is adequately safeguarded and promoted while they are accommodated by them.

(2) Where—
(a) the proprietor of an independent school to which section 87(1) applies enters into an agreement in writing with a person appointed under subsection (1),
(b) the agreement provides for the person so appointed to have in relation to the school the function of determining whether section 87(1) is being complied with, and
(c) the local authority in whose area the school is situated receive from the person with whom the proprietor of the school has entered into the agreement notice in writing that the agreement has come into effect,
the authority's duty under section 87(3) in relation to the school
shall be suspended.

(3) Where a local authority's duty under section 87(3) in relation to any school is suspended under this section, it shall cease to be so suspended if the authority receive—

(a) a notice under subsection (4) relating to the person with whom the proprietor of the school entered into the relevant agreement, or
(b) a notice under subsection (5) relating to that agreement.

(4) The Secretary of State shall terminate a person's appointment under subsection (1) if—

(a) that person so requests, or
(b) the Secretary of State ceases, in relation to that person, to be satisfied that he is such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,

and shall give notice of the termination of that person's appointment to every local authority.

(5) Where—

(a) a local authority's duty under section 87(3) in relation to any school is suspended under this section, and
(b) the relevant agreement ceases to have effect,

the person with whom the proprietor of the school entered into that agreement shall give to the authority notice in writing of the fact that it has ceased to have effect.

(6) In this section"—


(a) "proprietor" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944, and
(b) references to the relevant agreement, in relation to the suspension of a local authority's duty under section 87(3) as regards any school, are to the agreement by virtue of which the authority's duty under that provision as regards that school is suspended.

Duties of inspectors under section 87A.

87B.—(1) The Secretary of State may impose on a person appointed under section 87A(1) ("an authorised inspector") such requirements relating to, or in connection with, the carrying out under substitution agreements of the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(2) Where, in the course of carrying out under a substitution agreement the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b), it appears to an authorised inspector that there has been a failure to comply with section 87(1) in the case of a child provided with accommodation by the school to which the agreement relates, the inspector shall give notice of that fact to the Secretary of State.

(3) Where, in the course of carrying out under a substitution agreement the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b), it appears to an authorised inspector that a child provided with accommodation by the school to which the agreement relates is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the inspector shall—

(a) give notice of that fact to the local authority in whose area the school is situated, and
(b) where the inspector is required to make inspection reports to the Secretary of State, supply that local authority with a copy of the latest inspection report to have been made by the inspector to the Secretary of State in relation to the school.

(4) In this section—

(a) "proprietor" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944, and
(b) references to substitution agreement are to an agreement between an authorised inspector and the proprietor of an independent school by virtue of which the local authority's duty in relation to the school under section 87(3) is suspended."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This is another group of amendments to which we take the gravest exception, and we shall divide the House.
It is wrong that the Minister should seek to remove from the public domain and to privatise the inspection of independent schools. Under the legislation, the schools will be entitled to choose their inspectors and to pay for them. We all know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the basic flaw in the legislation.
The party that has done so much to support the private inspectorate service is making sure that tenders are given and that private schools will be able to have their own inspection system. That commands almost no support from independent bodies and there is no support from any body that is not directly concerned with the profit-making private school sector. We shall oppose the amendments.

Mr. David Jamieson: I oppose Lords amendment No. 26 which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, allows


independent and private boarding schools to opt out of the local authority social services inspection system that was set up under section 87 of the Children Act 1989.
I shall outline my reasons for total opposition to the new clause. It is worth reminding ourselves why section 87 was put in the Children Act. Hon. Members will recall that in the late 1980s there was concern about abuse of children in a small number of private boarding schools. At that time Crookham Court school was highlighted by the "That's Life" programme. I believe that the proprietor and one of the teachers are still serving prison sentences for offences against children in that school. I am glad to say that Crookham Court school was not typical and that most of the boarding schools work to high standards. However, that case highlights one extreme of what can happen if there is no proper system of regulation.
Under section 87 of the Children Act, the local authority social services inspectors inspect for various purposes. First, they respond to complaints or suspicions that there may be abuse of children. Secondly, they inspect to ensure that there is good practice in the schools and that the systems of care are in place. Thirdly, they take action if it is needed and if there are complaints that can be justified.
We were told that the purpose of the Bill is to remove oppressive regulation that creates undue burdens relative to its benefits. I have heard or seen nothing to convince me that the new clause to be added to the Children Act will help in that respect. The Department of Health did a survey of 250 heads of private and independent schools. A total of 77 per cent. of the head teachers said that the social services inspections were useful or very useful. I submit that the schools that were not satisfied with those inspections should attract our greatest concern.
There has been no outcry from the schools about oppressive regulation. In fact, there is clear evidence that there has been widespread satisfaction with the inspections that have taken place. The House has an interest in the matter and we need to legislate both for the general welfare of children and because many of the schools are being supported by the taxpayer to a substantial extent. Each year, private and independent schools receive up to a third of a billion pounds in taxpayers' money through the service boarding scheme, the assisted places scheme and other schemes that Ministries run so that children may receive private education.
In my constituency, a large number of families benefit under the service boarding scheme—my particular interest in this matter. Children, particularly those of service families, are often detached not just in terms of being away from home, but because their parents are in another country. They are, therefore, denied ready and easy access to their parents.
3 am
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South said, the main objection to the new clause involves the fact that, to be effective, inspection should be impartial and take a detached view. Most of all, however, it should be independent. The amendment allows private schools to choose their own inspectors—albeit ones approved by the Secretary of State—to carry out that vital inspection under the Children Act, although the school will pay for the

inspection. That creates a client relationship—the school becomes a client of the inspector. How can that possibly be an independent system of inspection?
The big danger is that the relationship between the school and the inspector could become too cosy. The inspection system through local authorities must be proactive. It must be put into action not when it has been stimulated to do so by the school, but when it has been stimulated by other sources or by the need to carry out the inspection at a certain time. I liken the proposed system to a café choosing its own food hygiene inspectors.
I feel that the amendment was spawned in the other place from misleading information. The first amendment was moved by Baroness Young on 4 July this year in the other place. Her statements were made in good faith but they were misleading and inaccurate. I shall cite two. She said:
There is hardly an independent school now without a telephone line where children can make private telephone calls home.
I have read some of the few Ofsted reports on private schools. One of the criticisms that they consistently make is that those schools do not have private telephone lines so that children can call home in privacy. Often, the telephone is located in a teacher's office with children having to make the call in front of the teacher.
The most misleading information that led the Government to propose the amendment related to Childline, which was set up at that time for six months. Baroness Young stated that
not a single case of sexual abuse came to light."—[Official Report, House of Lords,4 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1122-23.]
The Minister now knows that that information was inaccurate and totally false. In fact, 155 children rang Childline from private or independent schools and made allegations of sexual abuse, mainly by teachers. Another 37 children made complaints of another nature. That must justify having an independent system of inspection and take away any suggestion that inspections can be carried out by bodies appointed by schools. They must be carried out by independent people, working independently.
The Government are pandering to producer interests. I remind the Minister that many of the schools, such as the one that I mentioned earlier, are run by one proprietor, sometimes for private profit. I fear that if the amendment is passed, we shall in the very near future have to return to this issue because of serious concern about the abuse of children.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I oppose the amendment. I first became interested in the subject when two parents came to see me a few months ago to complain about something that had happened to their children at Fettes college in Edinburgh. I shall not go into details of the various incidents but I wrote to the director of social work about one of them, which makes it relevant to our debate.
Briefly, the incident involved the child of one of the parents being locked up for nine hours without food until a confession of drug-taking had been extracted. The boy denies the charge but, in a sense, that is not relevant to the story. I wrote to the director of social work who wrote back, saying that he could not get involved, although if he were in England he could have got involved. That is one more reason why we must have a children Bill for Scotland and why it must provide for social work departments, as we call them in Scotland—social services


departments in England—to have the power to inspect private schools. From that point, knowing that a children Bill was coming for Scotland, I took it on myself to ensure that I lobbied for that provision.
I was told, not only by the director of social work for Lothian region but by others involved in social work in Scotland, that they were all looking forward to the provision because they had heard from their colleagues in England how helpful it had been in improving the lot of children in public schools. I was, therefore, utterly amazed when I heard fairly recently that it was being sabotaged in another place. I read the report of the debate on 4 July and noted the Government's intention to table their own amendment, which is that which we are debating now.
There is nothing in the amendment to improve the lot of children in boarding schools—quite the opposite, in fact. The bodies set up to protect children can testify to that. We have already heard about Childline and the figures that were possibly not deliberately misquoted in another place. The National Children's Bureau is worried, as is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I stress that fact to the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs as I am told that he was a parliamentary consultant to that body. I therefore suggest that he listens to what the NSPCC is saying.
To accept the amendment would be a retrograde step. One point that I do not think has been mentioned is that there will be far less frequent inspections. I believe that they will occur once every four years but perhaps the Minister will confirm that. In any event, they will be far too infrequent.
Most important, schools will be able to choose their own inspectors on the "choose and pay" principle. That is the fundamental flaw in the amendment because it means that the school can choose someone much more sympathetic and far less critical than an independent social services or social work department. That was confirmed when I read the debates in another place. I especially remember the speech made by Earl Ferrers, who moved the amendment. I could hardly believe what I was reading. He said that people from social services departments had talked to pupils when teachers—or masters, as he called them—were not present. He thought that that was quite inappropriate, which let the cat out of the bag. The amendment is about protecting the schools, and especially the head teachers, and ensuring that there is no interference in the way they run the schools.
An especially obnoxious feature of the scheme is the kind of people moving the amendment: Earl Ferrers admitted that he was a fellow of Winchester college and Baroness Young, who first suggested it, is chairman of the Governing Bodies of Girls Schools Association, although she did not declare an interest. The public school lobby in the Conservative party is trying to protect what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) called the producer interest while the best interests of the children are not being considered.
What we really have here is a heads charter. Yet what is wrong with public schools at the moment is the fact that heads have far too much power. I have learnt that from my examination of what has been happening at Fettes. When parents—not only those who came to me—complained to the board of governors, the matter was simply referred to the head. Indeed, in the case of Fettes,

writs were sometimes issued if parents made statements in public. All the power is concentrated in the head. 'We need supervision of those schools, but if the amendment were passed we would lose that.
We need not a heads charter but a children's charter. I remind the Government of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which they have signed. If they read both the small print and the large print of that convention they would realise that they must act to protect children in schools, and must ensure that there is an independent inspectorate.
As for the end of the incident that I described, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) about it, and under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, inspectors have been able to go into Fettes. Although the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber, he probably cannot speak in the debate. None the less, I hope to receive a guarantee that the report will be published.
Even that, however, would take place two years after the incident, and some of the other incidents, happened. It would be far better if there were on-going annual inspections of such schools. That would benefit some, of their present pupils—and if such inspections had taken place in the past, how many more children would have benefited? If we are to believe the book recently written by Jonathan Dimbleby, one of the people who would have benefited would have been the heir to the throne.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I, too, shall speak against Lords amendment No. 26. I apologise for keeping the House up at this hour, but in terms of social policy and children's welfare we are dealing with a substantial matter, which the House should consider carefully even at this late hour.
There is something terribly wrong about tagging such an important debate about social policy on to a Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. If there was a case for an amendment, one should have been introduced by the Department of Health. Ministers from that Department, advised by the social services inspectorate, should have presented an argument to the House at a sensible time. We are talking about a major amendment to the Children Act 1989—an Act for which I commend the Government because it is a major piece of social policy. I hope that the amendment will not be passed; if it is, it will constitute a betrayal of that Act and it stands every chance of harming children.
If the amendment is carried we shall hear in future about cases of abuse within such institutions, and people outside will shake their heads in bewilderment that the amendment was carried at this hour, in such a Bill, and that so little attention was paid to it by most Members of the House. Such a change should not have been presented to the House of Commons in that way, so late, tagged on through a Lords amendment.
There are two important questions. First, does abuse occur in private schools? Secondly, if it does occur, can it be safely and responsibly left to the schools and the schools' own inspectors to cope with the problem?
As I have argued, the background to the measure is nothing to do with deregulation, but involves the growing concern about children's welfare in Britain and in societies such as ours over the past 10 to 15 years—and, sadly, the growing evidence of physical and sexual abuse,


often against very young children. No one can quantify that, or say with any confidence how much abuse occurs in different institutions, but it is clear that abuse occurs.
We know that the child abuser can strike within the child's family, in foster care and in institutional care of different kinds. Our private schools, especially boarding schools, are not immune. That is obvious, and I hope that that much is agreed. The evidence has already been cited that when, for six months in 1991, Childline had a special telephone line, 155 children telephoned with allegations of sexual abuse, mainly by teachers. There were only allegations, and I recognise that we can never find out the truth about them, but to ignore cries of help from young children would be a fatal mistake by the House.
Can regulation be safely left to the schools? I understand that the Secretary of State will keep an eye on who the inspectors are, and that Ofsted has a role. But how often will schools be inspected? From the point of view of a child—perhaps a tiny child—who is being abused and is afraid, how often will the inspectors come around? That is a genuine question which I hope that Ministers can clarify. There is a suggestion that Ofsted might inspect only every 10 years. Is that the case? Will the Independent Schools Joint Council—the school authority itself—inspect only every 10 years?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): indicated dissent.

Mr. Wicks: The Minister shakes his head, and I hope that he is right. I have no interest at this hour in making a debating point, but the Minister owes it to the House to tell us how often the schools will be inspected, not least from the perspective of a small child who may be being abused on a day by day, week by week basis.
We are told that the inspectorate teams appointed by schools will contain people with welfare expertise. That was stated in another place. What will be the nature of that welfare expertise? What will be the training and the experience of the people appointed? Are there criteria laid down? The Minister must reassure the House on that point.
There is a question, too, as to how independent the inspectors can be. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again, and I know that there is a difference of opinion in the House as to how independent an inspectorate appointed by and paid for by schools—albeit with some criteria from the Department—can be. I side with those who are concerned that if inspectors are paid by schools which are companies trying to maximise profits, an inspection team which gains a reputation for being tough on child abuse—we should all be tough on child abuse—may not get business in the future.
Will a school that knows that it has a problem say, "We will appoint that team because it was tough in another school"? It defies imagination that that will be the case. Throughout our history, stretching back to the origins of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools—a more noble organisation than Ofsted—we have learnt that inspections must be independent and rigorous if they are to create confidence and make an impact.
Interestingly enough, we have heard that head teachers were cross-examined about that by, I believe, the social services inspectorate. I do not know if that report has been published. If not, it would be useful if the Minister could

tell us when it will be published. We understand that the majority of head teachers found that social services inspections were useful. That seemed to be their evidence—if I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt tell the House.
If the head teachers find the visits useful, why has the amendment appeared? I think that it is because the private school industry—with a lack of imagination about its own role which will lose it the confidence of many parents and much public opinion—decided that it was too much of a bother to have inspections from social services agencies. Clearly, and sadly, the industry used the Government and its contacts in another place, and said, "Look, this is all a great mistake. We are finding this to be a hassle and a nuisance. Some social workers are starting to ask difficult questions. Can you amend the Children Act?"
It is an abuse of the parliamentary system that this matter should be brought forward through a deregulation Bill by Ministers who do not have authority to make judgments about children's welfare. It has come forward as though it were a bit of commercial deregulation, and it will produce major arguments which will adversely effect the welfare of some children. It is a serious matter and I believe that there are serious people on the Conservative Benches who will understand the force of the argument. I hope that they will have the courage, for the sake of our children, to vote accordingly.
In another place, Earl Ferrers said—I am never sure whether one is allowed to quote from the House of Lords—that the amendment had been drafted after discussion with the Independent Schools Joint Council. That is an honest statement and it shows where the impetus comes from: it comes from the industry.
I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions on which he may wish to consult Ministers from the relevant Department before answering. Has he sought the views of major children's organisations about the amendment? If so, what organisations did he consult and what are their views? The House needs to know them. Many of us might regard the views of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Bureau and others as more important in this context than those of the Independent Schools Joint Council.
Secondly, what is the view of Childline? What discussions has the Minister or the relevant Ministry had with Childline about its experience of the nature and incidence of child abuse, either sexual or physical, within children's institutions, which is what independent schools are? The Minister must spend some time telling the House the answer to that question because it is important.
What is the evidence from the Minister's own social services inspectorate? I say the Minister's own, but obviously I mean that of the Department of Health. You will have to excuse me for talking about the relevant Department in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The social services inspectorate has investigated many of the schools and the inspectors are the experts. We have a chief inspector with a status rather like that of the chief medical officer. Was he consulted? What was his advice? The House needs to know the answer to that question if we are to make a wise judgment even at this late hour when wisdom is not always in large quantity.
We know from experience that the child abuser can be found in many institutions. As we have found out more about the problem, we have found that the child abuser is


often ruthless about finding his way into institutions where the most vulnerable are to be found. The paedophile network and paedophiles are remarkably and tragically able to find the weakest points of the system. If we accept the amendment, another weak point will emerge. To suggest that there are not paedophiles in the public school system would be extraordinarily naive. We need to remember that. Paedophiles and child abusers will be in some of the most humble children's welfare institutions. They may also, equally tragically, find their way into some of our most famous public boarding and day schools.
Some child abusers will be fellow pupils. Some will be teachers. Some, I suspect, will be head teachers. After a decade of mounting evidence and concern, the amendment is not only an affront to well-informed opinion in this area but a tragic betrayal of some of our weakest children. We cannot, should not and must not sacrifice the frightened and sometimes abused child on the ideological altar of deregulation.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: We have heard some misinformed comment from Opposition Members, possibly as a result of hostility rooted in their objection to the private education system. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) correctly pointed to the fact that, prior to my appointment to this office, I was the honorary consultant in the House to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. May I make it clear that the Government do not intend to undermine or reduce in any way welfare protection for children, and the new clause will do nothing of the kind.
The Children Act 1989 currently requires local authority social services departments to take action to satisfy themselves that independent boarding schools are adequately safeguarding the welfare of boarders. I should remind the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) that, when the Children Act was passed, a commitment was given to keep that provision under close review. I have just reassuringly informed my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London that I have a speech on the Children Act which takes an hour and a half. I am sure that my hon. Friends will not want to hear it on this occasion. Thus, the matter has been flagged up as an issue to be kept under review in that way.
The new clause will enable the Secretary of State for Health to appoint to undertake the function of inspection an organisation that already inspects the education service of the school, provided that it has the necessary expertise. It is important to stress what we regard as the necessary expertise. An approved body would be required to follow the same guidance as social services authorities are required to follow in their inspections and would be subject to statutory requirements to notify the Department for Education and local social services authorities as appropriate if it discovers serious concerns.
Inspection teams will be expected to include at least one member with the necessary expertise or experience of running or inspecting residential child care services. It is envisaged that the organisations that wish to carry out the functions must undertake to include at least one such person with that experience.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West asked about frequency, may I inform him that it is expected that inspections should take place no less frequently than every four years, in view of what has been said about the

10-year figure during this debate. The organisations will have a statutory duty to report schools' failure to safeguard welfare to the Secretary of State and report child abuse allegations to local authorities, as I have described.
The new clause will give schools a choice of who should undertake the monitoring arrangements at independent boarding schools, but subject to the same provisions as I have already outlined.

Mr. Wicks: If, under the new system, inspections will be as rigorous and expert as those undertaken by social services departments, why make the change?

Mr. Evans: As the NSPCC has been quoted so much in this debate, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not only local authorities that may undertake inspections in relation to allegations of child abuse. This House has given statutory authority to the NSPCC along exactly the same lines as local authorities. Nobody dismisses the NSPCC's role or expertise in conducting inspections in exactly the same way. So the presumption that only local authorities can undertake that function is misplaced.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In pursuing that point, may I put it a little more succinctly to the Minister? I refer him to the words at the beginning of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) says:
the effect of the provision is such as to impose, or authorise or require the imposition of a burden".
What is the burden to which the Minister specifically refers? He has yet to explain that.

Mr. Evans: I have made it clear that, when the Children Act was passed, a commitment was given that the provision would be kept under review. The proposal does not alter the protection given to children, but if schools so wish, at the time of an education inspection they will be given the alternative of having an inspection undertaken by an organisation that has the necessary expertise, as I have outlined. I make it clear that that is a situation that does not in any way undermine the protection of children, as has been claimed by some Opposition Members.
I consider that protection of children is a matter of special importance. I believe that the measure is sensible.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Bill is about removing burdens. Which burden is being removed by the measure?

Mr. Evans: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Government are thereby responding to the commitment given at the time of the passage of the Children Act 1989, and a commitment given in the House.
The measure is sensible. I hope that the House will approve it.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 29.

Division No. 336]
[03.30 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)






Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Baldry, Tony
Legg, Barry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lidington, David


Booth, Hartley
Lightbown, David


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
MacKay, Andrew


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Maclean, David


Bowis, John
Malone, Gerald


Brandreth, Gyles
Merchant, Piers


Brazier, Julian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bright, Sir Graham
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Burns, Simon
Norris, Steve


Carrington, Matthew
Ottaway, Richard


Cash, William
Page, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James
Pickles, Eric


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Colvin, Michael
Richards, Rod


Congdon, David
Robathan, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Couchman, James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Day, Stephen
Shaw, David (Dover)


Devlin, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Dover, Den
Speed, Sir Keith


Duncan, Alan
Spink, Dr Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Spring, Richard


Elletson, Harold
Stephen, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stewart, Allan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Streeter, Gary


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Sweeney, Walter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Sykes, John


Fabricant, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Forth, Eric
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


French, Douglas
Thomason, Roy


Gallie, Phil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Garnier, Edward
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Gill, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Gillan, Cheryl
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gorst, Sir John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Viggers, Peter


Hague, William
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Waller, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hawksley, Warren
Waterson, Nigel


Heald, Oliver
Watts, John


Hendry, Charles
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Whittingdale, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Wilkinson, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Willetts, David


Jessel, Toby
Wolfson, Mark


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Wood, Timothy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Knapman, Roger



Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Mr. Michael Bates and


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Dr. Liam Fox




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clelland, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McMaster, Gordon


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Miller, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pike, Peter L.





Purchase, Ken
Welsh, Andrew


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Spellar and


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Jim Dowd

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 48

UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN ON APPLICATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 47, line 10, at beginning insert—
("(1A) After subsection 14(3)(b) there shall be inserted—
(c) that there will not be any adverse effects on local environmental conditions as a result of the activities of the licence-holder."")

Mr. Norris: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is well meaning, but it has not been thought through, and I regret to have to advise the House to disagree with it.
The Government are sensitive to the need to ensure that passenger transport operations do not have adverse environmental effects, but the question is whether the controls envisaged in the amendment are necessary, and how far they would be feasible or effective as currently drafted.
In any situation where a transport service is being provided for the public, a balance necessarily has to be struck between the needs of local people for an efficient transport system and the needs of residents for a pleasant environment in which to reside. There are already quite sufficient powers available to local authorities to ensure that balance. We believe that there is no need to introduce a further raft of controls on environmental grounds into the PSV operator licensing system.
Public service vehicle operating centres are, for the most part, well established and accepted in their localities. Before a new operating centre can be used, the operator must have planning permission, and that provides an opportunity to deal with any potential environmental problem.
Powers are available to traffic authorities under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose traffic regulation orders on various grounds, which include preserving or improving the amenities of an area. Such an order may be used to prohibit or restrict the use of a road by a particular class of vehicle. Thus, if a local authority is of the view that buses are spoiling the local environment, it can ban buses completely or take the lesser step of imposing parking and waiting restrictions.
Suitable safeguards already exist to ensure that smoky vehicles are kept under control. All PSVs are subject to metered checks of emissions when they receive their annual roadworthiness tests and, in addition, spot checks are undertaken by the vehicle inspectorate throughout the year.
The amendment is expressed in general terms, which could be interpreted very widely. For example, it might be taken to mean that there should be no adverse effects in the immediate vicinity of the operator's operating centre. On the other hand, the phrase
activities of the licence holder
could refer to the operator running local services along new bus routes where there were objections from residents, or it might refer to the adverse effects of smoky diesel engines which are poorly maintained. In short, it is imprecise in meaning.
I remind the House that the purpose of the Bill is to deregulate and reduce the level of unnecessary controls on industry. The amendment would introduce new constraints on PSV operators that are both unnecessary and unacceptable. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I did not catch what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said. [Interruption.] Frankly, it probably was not worth listening to. The amendment would not help to improve the environment, and would add needlessly to the hurdles facing those wishing to start a new business in the bus industry.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister was uncharacteristically tetchy. For a moment, I thought that, due to the lateness of the hour, he had turned the page and come to that fatal civil servant's note, "It's quarter to four in the morning, you sod; you're on your own."

Mr. Norris: I want to make it perfectly clear that none of the excellent personages now assembled to advise me would do any such thing.

Mr. Griffiths: I certainly would not want to fall out with them, as they will shortly be working for me.
The serious matter before us, which the Minister skirted around, is that, under the Transport Act 1985, there has been an explosion in the number of private bus operators. It is important that the environmental safeguards that currently apply to testing centres for lorries under the Transport Act 1968 should be extended to PSV operating centres, given the large rise in the number of PSV vehicles operating under the 1985 Act. The existing ability to object on environmental grounds to an application to run a lorry operating centre should also apply to bus operating centres.
That argument was put forcefully in the other place, and it carried the day. I believe that the same should be true here, so we shall put the matter to the vote.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). The amendment does no more than bring into line the requirements for PSV operating centres to be the same as those for lorry operating centres. If, as the Minister suggests, the amendment is unsuitable, perhaps he could explain why there is that disparity between the two regimes.
Although the hon. Gentleman referred to the regulations that might cover the highways and the pollution that buses might make, he did not explain how, in a broader sense, any environmental check might be brought to bear.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment —

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 24.

Division No. 337]
[03.48 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Alexander, Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Knapman, Roger


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Amess, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Arbuthnot, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Legg, Barry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lightbown, David


Bates, Michael
Luff, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
MacKay, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Maclean, David


Boswell, Tim
Malone Gerald


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Merchant, Piers


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bowis, John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Brandreth, Gyles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Norris, Steve


Bright, Sir Graham
Ottaway, Richard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Page, Richard


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Pickles, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Richards, Rod


Carrington, Matthew
Robathan, Andrew


Cash, William
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Chapman, Sydney
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Clappison, James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Colvin, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Congdon, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Speed, Sir Keith


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Spink, Dr Robert


Couchman, James
Spring, Richard


Day, Stephen
Stephen, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Stewart, Allan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Streeter, Gary


Dover, Den
Sweeney, Walter


Duncan, Alan
Sykes, John


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Elletson, Harold
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Thomason, Roy


Fabricant, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Thurnham, Peter


Forth, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


French, Douglas
Viggers, Peter


Gallie, Phil
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Garnier, Edward
Waller, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Gillan, Cheryl
Waterson, Nigel


Gorst, Sir John
Watts, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Wells, Bowen


Hague, William
Whittingdale, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Hawkins, Nick
Willetts, David


Hawksley, Warren
Wolfson, Mark


Heald, Oliver
Wood, Timothy


Hendry, Charles
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)



Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)



Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Derek Conway and


Jessel, Toby
Dr. Liam Fox






NOES


Barnes, Harry
Olner, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Salmond, Alex


Harvey, Nick
Skinner, Dennis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spellar, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Welsh, Andrew


Jamieson, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wise, Audrey


Kilfoyle, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Gordon McMaster

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 47, line 42, at end insert—
("() In section 17(1) after the words "as to professional competence" there shall be inserted "and the Traffic Commissioners shall also revoke the licence if the holder has shown consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations."")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am pleased that the Minister, having recognised the weakness of his argument on the previous amendment, has not sought to elaborate on this one.
The amendment was made by the other place to protect the public from PSV operators who have a bad record. It gave the powers to ensure that the licence holder was someone who—at least in terms of treating his or her own drivers, if he or she had drivers—had not breached the regulations. There was particular concern about the disregard for regulations on drivers' hours.
4 am
Their Lordships were considering the matter in the wake of a crash that killed nine American tourists on the M2; driver fatigue was a contributory factor. Their Lordships believe—and we agree—that people who put lives at risk should not be responsible for holding operators' licences. They may advance a case for mitigating circumstances, and such a case would be listened to, but that should certainly be one of the key criteria to be taken into account when granting or refusing a licence to such operators. We shall back up the other place, and put this to the vote.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the House in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 23.

Division No. 338]
[04.00 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Bates, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brandreth, Gyles





Brazier, Julian
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Bright, Sir Graham
Legg, Barry


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Lightbown, David


Burns, Simon
Luff, Peter


Burt, Alistair
MacKay, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Maclean, David


Cash, William
Malone, Gerald


Chapman, Sydney
Merchant, Piers


Clappison, James
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Neubert, Sir Michael


Colvin, Michael
Norris, Steve


Congdon, David
Ottaway, Richard


Conway, Derek
Page, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Pickles, Eric


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Richards, Rod


Couchman, James
Robathan, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Devlin, Tim
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Dover, Den
Shaw, David (Dover)


Duncan, Alan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Elletson, Harold
Speed, Sir Keith


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Spink, Dr Robert


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Spring, Richard


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Stephen, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Streeter, Gary


Forth, Eric
Sweeney, Walter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Sykes, John


French, Douglas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gallie, Phil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Garnier, Edward
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gillan, Cheryl
Thomason, Roy


Gorst, Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hague, William
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hawkins, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Heald, Oliver
Waller, Gary


Hendry, Charles
Waterson, Nigel


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Watts, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wells, Bowen


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Whittingdale, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Widdecombe, Ann


Jessel, Toby
Willetts, David


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Wolfson, Mark


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Dr. Liam Fox




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Olner, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Salmond, Alex


Harvey, Nick
Skinner, Dennis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spellar, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Welsh, Andrew


Jamieson, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wise, Audrey


Kilfoyle, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Jim Dowd

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 58

FUNCTIONS OF MINISTERS AND OFFICE-HOLDERS

Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 53, line 11, leave out ("subsection (2) or")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 50, 51, 60 and 158.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: There is a strong feeling among Labour Members that where people are involved—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It could be good news.

Mr. Griffiths: It is nice to see that so many people have been able to return to our proceedings from the bar. [Interruption.] I think that a lot of Conservative Members are lawyers.
We are dealing with a legal matter and the contracting out of legal services, and it is important that the Opposition put on record their objection to the contracting out of certain aspects of legal services that we think should firmly be in the public service.
The Government's practice of privatising elements of the legal and prison services has not met with stunning success or with much public support. The Minister will claim that the roles of a number of employees are merely administrative, are ripe for privatisation and should be handed over to the private sector. However, as the peers in the other place pointed out, many of those people deal with aspects of life that are important and private to members of the public, to businesses involved in insolvencies and bankruptcies and to politicians involved in challenges to local election results. They also deal with highly confidential matters that relate to children in family cases and that are in the public interest.
Some matters with which administrators deal are far too important to be contracted out. That is the reason why we oppose the proposals.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The amendments respond to particular concerns that were expressed about the status of courts and tribunals under part II of the Bill. The Government take the view that courts and statutory tribunals should not be or be seen to be susceptible to any outside pressure or influence.
In recognition of concerns about the adequacy of court lists and the absence of any exclusion for tribunals, the Government introduced the amendments, which make it clear that any exercise by an office holder of the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal that exercises the judicial powers of the state could not be the subject of an order under clause 58 and could not by that means become susceptible to contracting out.
I hope that that reassures hon. Members and I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Richard

Ottaway, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Jonathan Evans; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 4 to 9 relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Estonia) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Vietnam) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jersey) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INHERITANCE TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances) (Switzerland) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

FOODSTUFFS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5934/94 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd June 1994, relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional purposes; and agrees with the Government's intention to support this proposal.[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Tourism (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Bill Walker: It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that, at 4.15 am, I am delighted to have secured a debate on a vital aspect of the Scottish economy—the tourist industry.
Few will deny that Scottish tourism is a major business, which contributes some 5 per cent. of the gross domestic product and employs more than 180,000 people, many of whom are my constituents. Tourism is the largest employer in North Tayside. Indeed, tourism and the whisky industry are major contributors of overseas earnings to Scotland and, in many instances, their activities are linked. For example, the visitors' centres and distillery tours are enjoyed by thousands of people every year.
The good news is that the value of tourism—especially tourism from overseas—was last year estimated to be £670 million. That was an increase of 8 per cent. over the previous year, making last year the third successive year of growth. However, the bad news is that Scotland's tourist industry is now operating below the levels of the 1980s. There has been a massive decline this year in the number of visitors to Scotland's many stately homes. In some cases, the fall has been between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.
What is the problem? The problem is that, in 1993, United Kingdom tourism expenditure was still some 17 per cent. below that of 1989. Domestic tourism accounts for 68 per cent. of all tourism expenditure in Scotland. Eighty-three per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live in England, so they form the major segment of Scotland's tourist market.
Although the United States, France and Germany are vital for overseas earnings, they and visitors from the rest of western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere account for about 1.8 million overnight trips. English visitors account for about 3.7 million overnight trips; Scottish internal visitors account for 4.9 million; and visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom make 400,000 such trips. That makes a United Kingdom total of 9 million overnight trips to Scotland. Therefore, the internal United Kingdom market, and especially the English market, is vital to the continuing prosperity of Scotland's tourist industry.
The Scottish tourist board estimates that 1994 has not been a good year for Scottish tourism. That is associated with the decline in the United Kingdom market. Although the overseas market has probably grown, a decline in tourism of about 6 percent. in real terms is expected in the market as a whole.
Several factors have probably contributed to that decline. The recession has made people cautious; they are unwilling to spend money. The hard firm pound that is good for the United Kingdom economy also helps our people to buy more abroad and less, relatively, within the United Kingdom. Poor summer weather in 1991 and 1992 did not help, and we may not have competitive prices in hotels and restaurants. Worse still, we may have given offence to customers and potential customers from


England. Everyone who has worked in the service sector knows that a cardinal rule of the business is not to give offence to the customers. I shall return to that subject.
Moreover, we may not be marketing Scotland adequately—I shall say more of that later, too. Certainly the decline of salmon stocks in Scotland's rivers—due, many of us believe, to the number of fish drift-netted off the north-east coast of England—has encouraged many of our former regular visitors to Scottish rivers to seek better fishing overseas. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) in the Chamber, because the River Dee has suffered in that way.
The failure of Scottish football teams in European countries may also have influenced those who used to travel from England to see games in Scotland. Furthermore, an Automobile Association survey has highlighted the absence of non-commercial rest areas on the main tourist arterial routes, a lack of round-the-clock fuel facilities, and an absence of public toilets.
I hate to think what the proposal of the Royal Commission on the environment to double petrol prices would do to the highlands. Perhaps there would be a second highland clearance; I do not know—but certainly, if implemented, that proposal would kill the tourist trade from England.
Thus far, I have highlighted some of the problems. What can and should be done today to bring the visitors back from England and encourage them to resume their delightful visits to Scotland? First, I wish to commend and not to condemn—as some hon. Members did—Scottish Hydro-Electric for what it said about price rises:
The company, which serves northern Scotland, said the price rises proposed by the Office of Electricity Regulation would not be enough for proper maintenance of its network …
Chairman Lord Wilson said, 'It is not right that the massive investment of our predecessors to provide electricity throughout the Highlands and Islands should now be jeopardised. We would be failing in our duty to our community if we allowed our service to deteriorate by accepting these proposals."'
The board of Scottish Hydro-Electric is to be commended, not condemned. It is right to be concerned about continuing supplies for the elderly, the tourist industry and other vulnerable groups.
In a letter that I have sent to my hon. Friend the Minister, the chairman of the Perthshire tourist board, Councillor Tom Campbell, tells me that Eire has enjoyed an annual increase in tourism of 6 per cent. over the past decade. People are going from England to Eire in ever-increasing numbers, and Councillor Campbell attributes that fact to vigorous and well-funded marketing. He further claims:
It is my Board's belief that the Scottish Tourist Board undoubtedly has the expertise to carry out its functions, but that it is unable to make the Scottish tourism message heard in a competitive international market-place because of insufficient funding from central Government.
The Scottish Tourist Board has stated that, if it were to receive additional Governmental investment of just £7 million annually, (all of which would be devoted to marketing), by the year 2000 there would be an additional 39,000 jobs created in Scottish tourism and an increase in annual spending (in real terms) of £430 million by the year 2000. There can be few, if any, other areas of investment which would provide such high levels of return.

That is one suggestion from the chairman of the Perthshire tourist board and, in this instance, I must tell my hon. Friend that Mr. Campbell has my support.
I also suggest that a commitment to electrifying the main railway line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen would send some positive signals to people living in England and in Europe, and would help the oil and gas industries. I hope that we will see something positive on that soon.
More roadside facilities, as highlighted by the AA, are a must, and the removal of drift netting from the north-east coast of England within two years would help Scotland's salmon rivers and bring back England's fishermen. Scotland's hotels and restaurants would benefit from a reduction in non-domestic rates, and I hope that the new local authorities will hear that. The hotels in turn would be able to act, because they should examine closely their pricing structure to give value for money.
Scottish welcomes should be the order of the day. Everyone in Scotland should be made aware of the damage which can be done by giving offence.

Mr. George Kynoch: On the subject of giving offence, is my hon. Friend aware that extreme elements of the Scottish National party waged a campaign in my constituency in which they put up posters entitled "Settler Watch"—a campaign against those people who come in from outwith Scotland to settle in my constituency and enhance the economy of the area? Does he think that that enhances the tourism prospects of Scotland?

Mr. Walker: No, I do not, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I believe that narrow nationalists—and, I am sorry to say, some socialists—should be made aware that they are giving offence when they prattle on about land ownership and the way in which Scotland's moors and mountains are visited by individuals for grouse shooting and deer stalking. Those visitors and the anglers on our salmon rivers spend substantial sums of money locally and provide employment for native Scots in the more isolated and remote areas, where no other employment is available.
Narrow nationalists must also be told in no uncertain terms to stop making anti-English statements of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside, both inside and outside Scotland. Some hon. Members might bear that in mind. Narrow nationalists must also be told to stop painting anti-English slogans on bridges and at other prominent positions throughout the tourist areas of Scotland. Those give offence and drive people away.
I repeat what I said earlier—if one is in the service sector, one must never give offence to customers or to potential customers. The activities of narrow nationalists must be blamed for much of the decline in the numbers of tourists coming to Scotland from England. The House will note that I did not say "English tourists", because there are a lot of people living in England who are not English born and bred. However, they used to come to Scotland in substantial numbers, and they are important to Scotland.
I trust that my hon. Friend will take on board some of my thoughts, and I hope that he will be able to act where he can on some of my proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who are present at 4.30 in the morning to hear this important debate on Scottish tourism. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who have attended the debate in part or in whole.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North on raising the subject. I am, of course, aware of the recent publication by the Campaign For Rail Electrification Aberdeen to Edinburgh of the feasibility study of electrification north of Edinburgh. I understand that British Rail and Railtrack co-operated with the CREATE campaign group in looking at the case for electrification. It is, of course, for Railtrack to come forward with investment proposals that it considers worth while and for it to determine priorities within the resources available to it.
However, the Government are prepared to consider assisting railway investment schemes which, while they do not earn an adequate financial return, provide a satisfactory cost-benefit return when the wider benefits are taken into account. Any proposals would be given careful consideration within the resources available. I assure my hon. Friend that the Aberdeen to Edinburgh line remains an integral part of the east coast main line franchise.
I agree with my hon. Friend that slogans such as "English go home" should be strongly discouraged. All graffiti should be discouraged and removed. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), who has just joined us, in the Chamber. It is highly irresponsible of a few individuals to paint on buildings hostile signs against the English. The only effect of that is to reduce employment in Scotland. Indeed, such graffiti have given rise to complaints to the Scottish tourist board. I should ask the relevant communities and local authorities to take every action to remove the graffiti.
I remember some time ago making complaints to a council. It said that it removed only politically offensive graffiti. I regard graffiti such as my hon. Friend described as politically offensive, but I also regard all graffiti as giving rise to offence. They should be removed.
People come to Scotland because of the environment, the people and the heritage. They like the wide open spaces, the friendliness of the people and the magnificence of the heritage. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, or not so far away, there are Discovery point, the Perth art gallery, Dunkeld cathedral, Blair castle and the Pitlochry festival theatre as well as the excellent distillery. All those places—

Mr. Bill Walker: Do not forget Glamis.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right.
The visitor spend in Scotland has fluctuated, but it has increased from £1.8 billion in 1990 to £2.1 billion in 1993. Of course, tourism is the biggest single employer in the whole of Scotland. It is of vital importance to the economy and to the area that my hon. Friend represents. It is therefore particularly appropriate that we should debate it tonight.
We recognise tourism world wide as a growth industry of particular potential. It is a major creator of employment and wealth. Around the globe, countries and destinations want to win an ever-increasing share of those benefits. Such success cannot be achieved overnight. It is a continuous, constantly evolving process. Strengths have to be recognised and built on, weaknesses identified and remedied, trends and the aspirations of potential customers monitored and responded to. Of course, the competition is increasing all the time. New destinations appear every year to fight for their place in the world tourism market.
I fully recognise the challenges which face the Scottish tourist industry. We are pledged to do what we can to assist a very important sector of the Scottish economy—not, I may say, by displacing the industry's own actions. In the final analysis, the industry must prosper through its own efforts. Our role is to facilitate and encourage the industry's endeavours. That role is not simply about providing funding support—we provide substantial support—although that is important. There are other, equally significant, ways in which our resolve to help the industry must find expression.
In 1992, we conducted a major review of the way in which public sector support for tourism was directed. The outcome was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in June last year. The review signals the Government's determination to assist the Scottish tourist industry to maximise its potential. It was undertaken because, self-evidently, it was needed. Support arrangements for tourism had evolved in a piecemeal fashion over a considerable number of years. In our judgment the time had come for a major reconsideration of the fundamentals of public support. That was clear from the consultation.
The review identified the important role played by the public sector at both local and national level. It noted widespread concern that current arrangements were fragmented and no longer effective. From that, we concluded that Scottish tourism needed a support structure that was administratively straightforward, was based on partnership, incorporated effective liaison arrangements and operated within the context of a national strategy. Above all, it had to be accepted and understood by the industry that it served.
While achieving a revised support structure inevitably meant change, we also accepted the widespread view that such change should be achieved through evolution—in other words, through existing Government agencies at a national level and the existing partnership between local authorities and the tourism trade at a local level.
All the detailed decisions flowing from the review have been funded on those general principles. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we have made rapid progress in implementing the review's conclusions. Arrangements at the national level have been clarified. The Scottish tourist board is responsible throughout Scotland for marketing and for area tourist board sponsorship. In addition, business development activities are now consolidated in the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks.
Links between the boards of the Scottish tourist board, of Scottish Enterprise and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been strengthened through cross-membership. In recognition of the importance of tourism in the highlands, the Scottish tourist board will


establish a substantial presence in Inverness by 1 April 1995. A minimum of 40 full-time jobs will be located there, together with the board's quality assurance inspectorate.
The Scottish tourist board also remains my right hon. Friend's statutory advisor on tourism matters. The board has been given responsibility for drawing up a strategic plan in consultation with a wide range of partners, including representatives drawn from Scotland's tourism industry. I shall say more about that later.
At local level, my right hon. Friend announced in March our intention to establish a network of 14 area tourist boards by 1 April 1996. I am sure that my hon. Friend is delighted that we decided that Perthshire should retain its own tourist board—an outcome for which he campaigned vigorously and consistently. I had the pleasure earlier this year of officially opening the Perthshire board's new headquarters. The work which the board undertakes is impressive. It is the only ATB in Scotland that operates a visitor attraction—a working corn mill—in the same premises as its headquarters' office. I am certain that Perthshire will continue to prosper in the years ahead under the new ATB structure.
We attach great importance to the work of area tourist boards. They market their local area and provide services to visitors, such as accommodation booking. They operate over 170 tourist information centres throughout Scotland. They also have an important role to play in training and development issues. Arguably most important of all, they represent the interests and provide the voice of the tourist industry itself—over 16,000 tourism businesses are members of an area tourist board.
The Scottish tourist board has been charged with the task of assisting the area tourist board network in managing the changes that are taking place. That is an important element of the review. The new structure must meet local needs while at the same time retaining local loyalties.
We do not intend to impose detailed working arrangements on the new boards. Although the boards will be established under statute, it will be for local interests to determine membership and operational matters. The only exceptions are in respect of a very limited range of circumstances specified in the legislation currently before Parliament. Those have been debated at length and need not be gone over again tonight.
Over-arching those changes are our proposals to improve co-ordination within and between the public and private sectors. Excellent progress has been made here. The membership of the Scottish tourism co-ordinating group, which I chair, has been expanded. That group will continue its work of putting together the views of public sector bodies with an interest in tourism. It will continue to act as a forum for consideration of tourism-related issues of national significance. Most importantly, the group will be responsible for the preparation, dissemination and on-going review of the national strategic plan.
The plan is now in its final draft form, and is on course for launch and publication early next week. Suffice it to say that the plan's purpose is to identify where we are now, where we would like to be and, in general terms,

how to get there. It offers a clear framework for joint progress by the public and the private sectors towards mutually agreed goals.
We have also established the Scottish Tourism Forum, which held its first meeting on 23 September. The establishment of the forum recognises the widespread desire, expressed in the responses to the tourism review, that the industry itself should have a voice in the determination of tourism policy. It brings together a wide range of private sector organisations with a significant interest in tourism matters. It will, I believe, stimulate an informed debate on issues of common concern.
More formally, we look to the forum to provide the Scottish tourism co-ordinating group with advice on the strategic plan. To ensure that that takes place, we have decided that the forum's chairman will be a member of the STCG. That will, I hope, strengthen the close ties that we want to be developed between the public and private sectors.
My hon. Friend mentioned the statistics for tourism for the current year. I am aware that the preliminary statistics prepared by the STB in respect of the early part of the year as regards visitors to Scotland from within the United Kingdom are not encouraging. However, as my hon. Friend knows, the available information is in respect of the period January to June only. We must be careful in extrapolating the data to the full year, especially as the main holiday period is not included in the statistics that my hon. Friend quoted. I hope that the position will improve in relation to the year as a whole.
I am encouraged, however, to learn that the number of overseas visitors to Scotland has apparently continued to increase. That upward trend has occurred for several years, on the back of strong overseas marketing campaigns by the STB, which, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend, will certainly continue.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of tourists coming from England has declined, not only this year, but in earlier years, according to the evidence? Does he agree that the behaviour of the Scottish nationalists earlier, when they delayed the business of the House, is a typical example of the way that offence is given, and that such practices have stopped people coming to Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is possible. We have to obtain the complete figures and study them, but I also think that it is possible that, with the ending of recession, more people in England are taking holidays in the sun, rather than their normal holiday north of the border. Obviously that is a cause of concern. We are examining it closely, and we shall study those matters with regard to the public expenditure survey and Scottish Office funding.
I shall also mention the comparison with Ireland. International comparisons are fraught with difficulty, because of the differences in the structure and financing of the industry. The STB's budget is only one of several components of public sector support for tourism here, and a much more detailed analysis would be required if true comparisons were to be drawn.
In the few minutes remaining, I shall respond about resources. First, the primary responsibility for investment, training and marketing lies with the industry itself, and the purpose of public expenditure should be to supplement


private expenditure where that is necessary. Secondly, the public sector—which includes both enterprise networks, local authorities and organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Arts Council as well as the tourist board—already makes a significant contribution to supporting the tourism industry.
Several of the public sector bodies that provide assistance have the flexibility to adjust their priorities according to new needs. They will need to consider resource allocations against the priorities set out in the tourism strategic plan, as indeed the Scottish Office will consider resources against those priorities.
The Scottish tourism industry also benefits enormously from European funding, and will do so to a substantially greater extent in future, under the objective 1 programme for the highlands and islands.
I must say also to my hon. Friend that the public purse should not necessarily be the automatic first call when new resources are deemed necessary. The STB exists, as I have said, to support the tourism industry's own efforts—to correct market failure.
The Government are doing a great deal to ensure the well-being of Scotland's tourism industry. The package of measures that I have described will help to achieve a significant improvement in Scotland's position as a visitor destination. It is now up to the industry itself to play a positive and forward-looking role in helping turn our proposals into a success story.
I say briefly to my hon. Friend that, in 1993, more than 10 million tourists took overnight trips, and those resulted in generating spend of more than £2 billion. The census of 1991 put the number of tourism jobs at 171,000–8 per cent. of all employment.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o'clock